Book Divine Sex FREE Online Part 2 of 4
http://inkaboutit4u.com/?p=Book_Divine_Sex_FREE_Online_Part_2_of_4
Pages 66 - 193
Perhaps porneia, a general word for any unlawful sexual
intercourse, may here (Mt. 5:32; 19:9) refer only to cases where
marriage itself was discovered to be illegal because of
consanguinity.
Through divorce and remarriage a man can commit adultery
against his wife (Mk. 10:11). Similarly Jesus’ extension of what
constitutes adultery (Mt. 5:27-28) shifts the focus away from a
man’s rights over his wife, to the mental attitude of one who even
entertains the thought of adultery.”
Eerdman’s Bible Dictionary, p.693, 694.
“The marital ideal (as) laid down in Gen. 2:24, established
monogamy as a working principle for mankind. Once the fall
occurred, the wife was placed in a subordinate position and
immediately was vulnerable to exploitation, one form of which was
polygamy. This type of marital relationship occurred under a
variety of circumstances. Women captured in battle (Dt. 21:10-14)
became part of the victor’s spoils. While some women were taken
as wives, others were reduced to brutal concubinage, ministering to
the captor’s lusts while their legal wives bore the legitimate family
offspring. Women who found themselves serving as slaves for
other reasons frequently became the object of sexual exploitation in
households by men who regarded them as inferior wives.
By the Mosaic period polygamy was being legislated for as
though it was a current social institution (Dt. 21:15-18). King David
was unashamedly polygamous as was Solomon. One form of
polygamy was (actually) provided for in the Law. This was the
marriage knows as the “Levirate”, and was apparently sanctioned
in the interests of endogamous marriage and the continuation of
the family line. Levirate marriage (Dt. 25:5-10) provided that a
deceased man’s brother should take the widow as his wife and
raise a family to perpetuate his brother’s name and keep inherited
land in the family. Levirate marriage seems to contravene the
legislation in prohibiting marriage with one’s brother’s wife (Lev.
18:16; 20-21), but in other respects was a humane way of dealing
with what was frequently the desperate plight of widows by
keeping them within the family and tribe.
There are thus numerous reasons for the rise of polygamy
which, apart from sensuous considerations, included the need to
maintain endogamous marriages, desire to increase the Israelite
67
population, necessity for providing for destitute widows in order to
avoid slavery, prostitution and the like, and maintaining the
nation’s work force. These factors notwithstanding, the ideal
Hebrew marriage continued to be monogamous, despite the
examples set to the contrary by royalty.
The NT teachings on marriage presupposed monogamy. While
polygamy was tolerated among the rich and powerful, it was
recognized as a violation of that covenantal fidelity that God
demanded of Israel His bride, and that Christ also demanded of the
church (2 Cor. 11:2)
– ISBE, vol. 3, p. 901 –
“From Gen. 2:24 we may evolve the following principles:
….(3)Monogamy as the original law of marriage. In the patriarchal
age polygamy prevailed but to a great extent divested of the
degradation which in modern times attaches to that practice. The
Mosaic law discouraged polygamy.
Our Lord and His apostles re-established the integrity and
sanctity of the marriage bond by the following measures: (1) by the
confirmation of the original charter of marriage as the basis upon
which all regulations were to be framed, Mt. 19:4,5; (2) by the
restriction of divorce to the case of fornication, and the prohibition
of remarriage in all persons divorced on improper grounds, Mt.
5:32; 19:9; Rom. 7:3; 1 Cor. 7:10,11; (3) by the enforcement of moral
purity generally, Heb. 13:4, and especially by the formal
condemnation of fornication, Acts 15:20.”
– Smith’s Bible Dictionary, p.382 –
Our observations:
In spite of these emphatic statements that monogamy was the
original law of marriage, there is no possibility of demonstrating
that premise from Scripture. All we can say for certain about Gen.
2:24 is that God originated human life on this earth by creating only
one of each sex. The Bible does not say that He did so “because it
was His will that one man and one woman be married for life,
excluding all others.” If that was God’s intention, He did not say so.
And when men began to practice polygamy there was never a
single word from God to correct the practice. His most faithful
servants, and those whom He chose to be the fountainhead of blessing for
68
humanity for the rest of human history, practiced polygamy and
concubinage. Yet, as zealous as Jehovah is for righteousness, holiness
and truth, He never corrected these who were to serve forever as
the prime examples of faith and obedience. They all heard His
voice; they all love His Law; they all were obedient to His
commands. If God was displeased with their many wives and
concubines, why did He not say so and correct it at the outset of
human history so that it would not flourish and become common
practice? And if we declare that God was displeased with
polygamy, on what basis do we do so? God doesn’t indicate such
displeasure in any way. And He most certainly makes no statement
to the effect that monogamy is His will for all men forever. Such
ideas are not derived from Scripture. They are placed upon Scripture
in spite of actual contrary evidence.
After Lamech’s polygamy and after the flood, as soon as Noah
and family exited the ark, God commanded them to avoid eating
blood, Gen. 9:4, and established the death penalty for murder,
(Gen. 9:6). Since the whole motive for the flood was to cleanse the
earth of sin and give mankind a brand new start, then why did God
not also command Noah and family to avoid polygamy, especially
since it was a part of the human experience before the flood,
(Gen.4:19). If monogamy was God’s preference, why did He not
make this as strong a law as he did against eating blood? The fact
that polygamy was in human experience already, yet was not even
hinted at in this post-flood setting, should cause us all to reflect
soberly on God’s real attitude toward polygamy.
The fact that God’s very best servants, the “elite” among all
saints, practiced polygamy, concubinage and accepted prostitution,
with not so much as a hint of God’s displeasure, weighs heavily in
favor of the fact that God did not forbid it, that He even accepted it
as normal among humans, just as He created it to be a normal instinct
in the animal kingdom. The evidence that God felt otherwise about
this practice simply does not exist.
Consider this list of God’s greatest examples of faith in Hebrews
chapter 11.
Abraham - polygamist and concubinist - no censure anywhere.
Isaac – polygamist and concubinist - no censure anywhere.
Jabob – polygamist and concubinist, went in to a prostitute - no
censure anywhere.
69
Gideon – polygamist and concubinist - no censure anywhere.
Samson – polygamist and concubinist - no censure anywhere.
David – polygamist and concubinist - no censure anywhere.
In all God’s dealings with these men He never even attempted to
tell them it was sin or even inadvisable for them to marry more
than one wife or to have concubines. Nor did it perturb Him that
the one whose name was changed to Israel, the father of the Jewish
nation, bore a child by his daughter in law thinking she was a
prostitute, and that this child, Perez, was an ancestor of Israel’s
greatest king, David, and of Jesus Christ, (Lk. 3:31-33).
Contrary to church teaching and bold statements that the NT
corrects polygamy, and makes monogamy the only possibility for
humanity, there is not one statement in all the NT that says this. The
best that can be found are some verses that might imply this to be so.
Even these are by no means determinative. Let's consider them:
“He who created them from the beginning made them male and female
and…the two shall become one flesh,” (Matt. 19:4,5). From this it is
argued that, “God intended one man and woman to become one
flesh. He never intended that more than a couplet engage in
marriage.” The answer to this quibble seems obvious and easy.
What is problematic about one man and two women becoming one
flesh? Is it possible for two to become one, but impossible for three
to become one? Jesus’ point is not that two and two only can become
one. His point is that marriage creates oneness between the mates,
however many there be. If we do not think so, then do we think
Jacob, Leah and Rachel were not “one flesh?” If only one of his
wives could qualify, then surely Jacob was “one flesh” only with
Leah for she was his first wife. Thus Rachel, though a wife, was not
“one flesh” with her husband! Isn’t this really too absurd to argue
further?
“Because of immorality let each man have his own wife and let each
woman have her own husband,” (1 Cor. 7:2). Again this is thought to
eliminate the possibility of each man having his many wives, and
each wife having her many husbands. But it no more eliminates
multiple marriage than does the preceding text. This simply states
God’s recommendation that people marry in order to avoid
“immoralities.” If we are disposed to be utterly literalistic with this
70
text, perhaps we should take literally the admonition that “it is good
for a man not to touch a woman,” (vs. 1). Add to this that, “to him who
knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin,” (Jas. 4:17). Thus
we have “Biblical authority” for condemning as “sinners” all men
who touch a woman. We can see too clearly for such to be taken
seriously. Paul is not trying to reinforce monogamy as God’s
preference for humanity. Monogamy is not in the subject matter at
all. His one concern is to protect God’s people from the troubles
coming upon them because of the “present distress” (vs. 26). Any
attempt to press the words of vs.2 beyond their singular meaning,
and apart from their context, is inexcusable.
In light of the fact that Corinth was a pagan city, laden with
Greek culture, including large-scale practice of polygamy, this
would have been the perfect place to make an inspired statement
about “monogamy alone for all who want to go to heaven.” If
monogamy is in fact mandated for humanity, then how can we
possibly explain total absence of references to it in the NT, and
especially in this epistle whose whole emphasis is on correcting
spiritual (1 Cor. 1 - 3), moral (1 Cor. 5 - 6), relational (1 Cor. 7-10),
liturgical (1 Cor. 10 -14) and doctrinal (1 Cor. 15) problems in the
church at Corinth? We should find here, if nowhere else, God’s
transparent declaration for monogamy, plus His requirement that
all Corinthian polygamist men must divorce all wives except the
first one. The absence of such admonition in such a context speaks
volumes. The “thunder of God’s silence” in this case is compelling.
“An elder…must be the husband of one wife…” (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus
1:6).
“Deacons… must be husband of one wife, (1 Tim. 3:12).
The requirement that elders and deacons be husbands of one
wife, cannot be made to infer anything more than that church
leaders must have only one wife. This is akin to the requirement
that Israel’s kings not “multiply wives unto yourselves…” The
possibility of being led away from truth because of the great
influence of many wives and concubines is illustrated by Solomon’s
history. It would be the same for Christian leaders. Because they
are responsible for the souls of many they must be extra careful
about any influence that will lead them away from truth. Yet even
for elders in the church there is a possibility that some might be
acceptable even though they have more than one wife on the same
71
premise that one might be acceptable as an elder even though he
fell short in one of the other qualifications. If we look at the
qualification as a list to which one must measure up perfectly then
no one would ever qualify as an elder. If a man had 3 wives, and
yet measured up to all the rest of the qualifications in admirable
manner, would it not be ridiculous to forbid him leadership in the
church when his spiritual qualifications might outstrip those of all
other applicants? If his spiritual leadership is of high enough
quality then he would be able to handle multiple wives without
being led astray from God. This probably explains why David
could be such a great king and a man “after God’s own heart,”
though he had many wives and concubines. And in spite of the fact
that God told the kings to not multiply wives for themselves, we
remind you that it was God himself who gave to David his many wives
and concubines, and said He would have given him many more if he
wanted them, (2 Sam. 12:7, 8). So God’s specific order was not meant
to be an absolute prohibition against a king having many wives. It
was a warning of the dangers such could bring. But because He
knew David’s heart, and because apparently God considered
having many wives and concubines to be a blessing, He gave many
of them to David. In the same manner we probably ought to see
Paul’s instruction for elders to have only one wife. It cannot be
viewed as more rigidly prohibitive for elders in the church than it
was for kings in Israel. The safest course to pursue for spiritual
leaders is monogamy; not for moral reasons, but because of their
responsibility to avoid influences that would lead them to apostasy
and thus endanger the souls of those whom they lead. It is
doubtless much less of an absolute requirement for elders than we
want to think. As it was with Israel’s kings, so it is with leaders in
the church.
An important question here is, “what circumstances existed in
Ephesus and Crete that would make such a requirement as this
appropriate for the epistles to Timothy and Titus?” If polygamy did
not exist in the churches of that time this restriction makes no sense
at all. If there was no probability of church leaders having more
than one wife how could Paul, by inspiration, make an issue of it?
The fact that this restriction appears in these epistles is secondary
proof that polygamy was in the church at that time just as church
history affirms. The surprising thing is that, even though polygamy
was in the church Paul made a restriction only regarding elders and
72
deacons. If polygamy was a detestable thing how could Paul refuse
to tell Timothy and Titus to eradicate it from the church? God
required a similar thing of Israel, under Nehemiah’s leadership,
requiring them to leave their pagan wives.
God was very pointed about telling Christians what things
would keep them out of the kingdom of God. He gives detailed
lists of such sins in 1 Cor. 6:9, 10; Gal. 5: 19-21; Eph. 5:5; Col. 3:5-9,
etc. Since polygamy existed in the church how is it possible that
God considers it a great sin and yet fails to mention it even once as a
“sin” requiring repentance? This fact appears strongly to
demonstrate that God’s mind has not changed from what we see in
the OT record. What He accepted before the cross He still accepts.
Society’s attitude is not the standard of right and wrong on this
issue. The church’s attitude is not the standard. Nor is hatred for
the Mormon church. God’s word is the standard. The combined
facts of polygamy’s existence in the NT church, with God’s silence
about it, demonstrates God abiding acceptance of it. God did not
correct it in the NT simply because He did not see it as needing
correction.
The statements in Smith’s Bible Dictionary can be disposed of
easily. He says
“Our Lord and His apostles re-established the integrity and
sanctity of the marriage bond by the following measures:
(1) by the confirmation of the original charter of marriage as the
basis on which all regulations were to be framed, Mt. 19:4,5;”
Reply: This “original charter” states nothing of monogamy.
Nowhere is there a law, principle or anything else that shows God’s
original intention was monogamy. Jesus deals only with the matter
of divorce, not of multiple wives. It is adultery for a man to divorce
his wife and marry another. But nothing is said of the well
established practice of being faithful to the first wife, and marrying
another.
“(2) by the restriction of divorce to the case of fornication, and
the prohibition of remarriage in all persons divorced on improper
grounds, Mt. 5:32; 19:9; Rom. 7:3; 1 Cor. 7:10,11;”
Reply: Again Jesus deals with divorce, not polygamy. Jesus
intended men to understand that they are bound to faithfully care
for their wives and not divorce them simply in order to marry
73
another wife. If they desired another wife they could marry one,
but they could not divorce the first one to do so. This was a
protective measure for the wife that was God’s original intention
from the beginning.
“(3) by the enforcement of moral purity generally, Heb. 13:4,
and especially by the formal condemnation of fornication, Acts
15:20.”
Reply: “Moral purity” is not defiled by polygamy. It was
never so in the OT, and nothing in the NT makes it so. The “moral
purity” of Abraham, Jacob, Gideon David and all the rest was not
defiled by their polygamy. If it was, then God’s offer to give David
even more wives and concubines was an offer to defile his morality
even more! If a man was faithful to love and care for as many wives
as he had, he was “morally pure.” And “fornication” was never
associated with polygamy or concubinism. God’s “formal
condemnation of fornication” has less than nothing to do with
polygamy and concubinage. The meaning of the word and its
application do not allow for such a statement as the above.
Quotes from early church fathers:
It is always interesting to examine the writings of the earliest
church leaders, historians and writers, for what they can show us
about the attitudes of the earliest saints in spiritual matters.
Consider these:
“Your impudent and blind masters even until this time permit
each man to have four or five wives. And if anyone sees a beautiful
woman and desires to have her, they quote the doings of Jacob.”
(Justin Martyr, c. 160a.d.)
“If it were allowable to take any wife or as many wives as one
chooses – and how he chooses – David would have permitted this.
Nevertheless the men of your nation practice this all over the earth,
wherever they sojourn.” (Justin Martyr)
“Others, again, following upon Basilides and Carpocrates, have
introduced promiscuous intercourse and a plurality of wives, and
are indifferent about eating meat sacrificed to idols, maintaining
that God is not greatly concerned about such matters.” (Irenaeus, c.
180).
74
“The contracting of marriage with several wives has been done
away with from the times of the prophets. For we read, “Do not go
after your lusts, but refrain yourself from your appetites” (Sir.
18:30). And in another place, “Let your fountain be blessed and
rejoice with the wife of your youth.” This plainly forbids a plurality
of wives.” (Methodius, c. 290)
On qualifications for those chosen to be elders, we have statements
like these.
“We have already said that a bishop, a presbyter, and a deacon,
when they are constituted, must be married but once, whether their
wives are alive or whether they are dead.” (Apostolic Commission,
compiled c. 390)
“You say “it is true that the apostle has permitted remarriage
after the death of a spouse. You also say that it is only those who
are of the clerical order that he has stringently bound to the yoke of
one marriage. For that which he prescribes to one certain person, he
does not prescribe to all.” (Tertullian, c. 217).
Historian and Editor, David Bercot, says this about these quotes
and many like them:
“(They) understood the verses above (1 Tim. 3:2, 12) to apply to
any second marriage, including a remarriage after one’s spouse had
died. If a person had been remarried for any reason, that person
was disqualified from being ordained into the clergy…The
Montanists went even further, prohibiting even laypersons from
remarrying after the death of their spouses.”
(all above quotes from Bercot, A Dictionary of Early Church Beliefs, p.
657)
These quotes prove that the church recognized and accepted
polygamy and contained much of it within their individual
fellowships. It also shows the beginnings of that same legalistic,
human law making tendency that forever plagues those trying to
find and follow simply the truth, without having to wade through
the dogmatic, hair-splitting, Scripture twisting tactics of those who
think they know better how the church should function, and how
humans should live, than the God who created the church and
humans.
75
No one today, except radical legalists, holds the position that no
one is allowed to remarry even if their spouse dies. Most do not
believe that a man is disqualified from being an elder if he is
remarried after the death of his previous wife. Those today who
believe such nonsense are as wrong as these quoted above, and for
the same reasons. They are not content to allow God to say what
He wants to say and allow all saints to abide by God’s simple
words. They are compelled to begin splitting hairs until they have
devised a code book that goes far beyond anything God said or
intended. Like the Jews in Jesus’ day they “make many laws that are
grievous to bear,” against whom Jesus pronounced this curse: “In
vain do they worship me, teaching as their doctrines the commandments of
men.”
Jesus had no patience with Phariseeism in His day, and neither
should we. It is interesting to see that the perverse nature of man’s
heart is such that within 150 years of the apostle’s deaths, the
church was beginning to adopt human rules that went beyond
God’s actual words.
The premise still stands it seems to us: Polygamy existed
throughout the entire era of Biblical revelation, from Moses
(Genesis), through John (Revelation). By the testimony of some of
the early church fathers it existed in the church during the first two
centuries. Yet when everything else was changing and there was
the one perfect opportunity – we should even say the only possible
opportunity – to set the course of the church in a different direction,
when the NT was being written, no apostle wrote a syllable about
God’s preference for monogamy. If the apostolic writings are
indeed our sole basis for faith and practice must we not be satisfied
with their silence on this subject? And is that silence not
profoundly significant in view of the prevalence of polygamy in
that century, even in the church? Are we justified in making our
human and fallible interpretations the rule for faith and practice in the
church? If we truly believe that God condemns polygamy now,
then:
Why condemn it now, but never before?
If it was acceptable in OT times, what happened that changed it
into a sin?
If polygamy was a blessing for David, what transformed it into a
curse for us? Certainly not God’s law, for there is no such law.
76
The nature of polygamy has not changed. If God with His
infinite wisdom, looked with approval at polygamy in OT
times, how can we believe He looks at the same thing now, with
disapproval?
If it is as important as we think it is, why not a word about it in
the only book God gave us that enables us to follow His will?
Why are we left to arrive at the conclusion that polygamy is sin
by using human reasoning, rather than having a direct
revelation? Human reasoning is good for many things, but is
utterly worthless for establishing Divine law.
If we follow the same reasoning used to condemn polygamy,
then we must also condemn instrumental music in worship,
clapping, raising hands and dancing in worship. Anyone who
accepts any of these worship expressions, does so in the face of
the silence of the NT.
This study is not meant to publicly embrace or recommend
polygamy in practice or teaching. The value of this study to any
child of God is that we strive to learn truth and that we honor His
word regardless of how it may conflict with opinions and
traditions. It is a dishonor to God to dispute His word for any
reason. Once learning truth we dishonor God if, for any reason, we
choose man’s laws, traditions, rules, etc. over God’s truth.
Doubtless most readers would not choose polygamy even if it was
acceptable in our society. And if we must avoid the practice of
polygamy because of prevailing social mores and civil laws, we are
not therefore obligated to consent that man’s way is best. At all
times God’s people must affirm God’s truth above all, even when
that might incur the wrath of others.
We do not advocate that anyone begin a crusade to attempt to
convert the church and modern society to the position taken in this
writing. All that is necessary is that, if one believes this to be truth,
then one embrace it in relationship first with God, by admitting
that we have been wrong and then affirming His truth. Then we
must allow this truth to control our attitude toward those who
attempt to practice it. We cannot at the same time believe that
polygamy is basically acceptable with God, and then join those
who castigate Mormons, e.g. because they attempt to practice it.
And then we must, if we say anything about it at all, say what we
believe is true. If we lack the courage to say that we believe
77
polygamy to be acceptable to God today just as it always was, then
we need to simply be silent.
Our conclusion:
Nothing in the NT changes what throughout the OT was a
widespread practice accepted by God and even granted to David as
a blessing. Polygamy was never a sin in OT, nor is there any
indication in all Scripture that God even disapproved of it. God’s
attitude did not change after Christ died. From a moral vantagepoint
a man may now, as then, have as many wives as he is able to
fully provide for and protect. From a practical vantage-point
polygamy is not tolerated in the hostile environment of our society
and should therefore be avoided.
CONCUBINAGE
First, to be sure that we know what we are considering, we will
look at the definition of this word and some comments from
modern scholars.
Concubine: Heb. “a paramour.” (Strong’s #6370, 3904)
“A female slave responsible for bearing children to insure
continuation of the family name. Access to the royal concubines
was viewed as a legal claim to the throne, hence they were
accorded special protection. Concubines were viewed with
affection by their husbands and any assault on their well being
might be cause for vengeance. Although frequently their function
was to provide sexual gratification (“man’s delight” Eccl. 2:8) they
might also be given considerable responsibility. ”
–Eerdman’s Bible Dictionary, pg. 230 f.
“The difference between wife and concubine was less marked
among the Hebrews than among us, owing to the lack of moral
stigma. With regard to the children of wife and concubine, there
was no such difference as our “illegitimacy” implies. The state of
concubinage is assumed and provided for by the law of Moses. A
concubine could generally be either (1) a Hebrew girl bought of her
father; (2) a Gentile captive taken in war; (3) a foreign slave bought;
78
or (4) a canaanite woman, bond or free. Free Hebrew women might
also become concubines. To seize on royal concubines for his use
was often a usurper’s first act. Such was probably the intent of
Abner’s act, 2 Sam. 3:7, similarly the request on behalf of Adonijah
was construed, 1 Kg. 2:21-24. ”
– Smith’s Bible Dictionary, pg. 122 f.
Scriptures:
Let us see what the Bible actually says about concubinage. We
begin by listing all the texts that refer to polygamous relationships,
with brief notations.
Sarah asks Abraham to have sex with Hagar. There is no hint of
God’s displeasure with either Sarah or Abraham, and no
condemnation of Abraham’s “adultery(?)!” (Gen. 16:2f).
Abraham had sons by several concubines, (Gen. 25:6). Inasmuch
as Abraham is held forth to us as the premier example of faith and
close relationship with God (e.g. Galatians and Heb. 11) it is
passing strange that God would not say something about his
concubinage, in order at least to warn us, if God did not want us to
follow his example in that. Did God disapprove of this practice,
and yet never even hint at such displeasure to this great man of
faith, whom He called his “friend?”
Keturah is named as Abraham’s concubine, (1 Chron. 1:23).
Rachel gives her maid to Jacob for sex, more than once, (Gen.
30:3, 7). God does not correct. Leah also gives her maid to Jacob for
sex, (Gen. 30: 9, 12). Thus Jacob has two wives and two concubines
with whom he has sexual relations. God does not correct it,
indicating that God is not displeased with it.
Timna was concubine to Esau’s son Eliphaz, (Gen. 36:12).
One who buys a female slave must be fair to her. If he takes
“another woman” he may not neglect the first one. This “ordinance” is
God’s law, (Ex. 21:1, 8-10). This is God’s allowance for a man having
more than one sexual mate.
Gideon had a concubine who bore Abimelech, (Jdg. 8:31). He
was a valiant warrior, a faithful servant and he died without God
ever rebuking him or correcting his concubinage.
79
A Levite takes a concubine for himself. She leaves to play the
harlot against him. He is called her “husband,” (Jdg. 19:1-3).
Saul is married to Ahinoam, (1 Kg. 14:50), and has a concubine
named Rizpah, (2 Sam. 3:7).
David has 10 concubines whom he leaves in charge of his house
while fleeing Absalom, (2 Sam.15:16). Absalom has sex with the 10
concubines on the roof of the palace, in the sight of all Israel, (2
Sam. 16:21,22). David isolates the 10 concubines and has no more
sex with them, (2 Sam. 20:3).
David grows old and cold, so his servants find a “beautiful young
virgin,” Abishag, to lie with him to keep him warm, (lKg. 1:1-4).
Why a “beautiful-young-virgin?” Obviously it is the sexual
excitement that would increase the “heat” so David would be
warm. She was to “service” David, or “to be familiar with” him in a
sexual way, (Strong’s #5532). The Septuagint (Greek Translation of
OT) renders it “to excite him.” The natural body of even an
extremely beautiful woman would provide no more physical
“warmth” than any of the many wives and concubines David
already had. It is the added sexual “heat” that they count on to
warm David. And since David has so many women already, what
difference does one more make? Abishag becomes his concubine.
Now, what might this example have to say about the nature and
definition of “lust of the flesh” and “lust of the eyes?” Why do we not
have here even a simple sentence like, “Now the Lord was not
pleased with this plan…” or something to indicate that it was
wrong, if it was?
David had sons by several wives, “besides the sons of the
concubines,” (1 Chron. 3:1-9).
As per custom, Solomon “inherited” all of David’s wives and
concubines, including Abishag, then proceeded to add hundreds
more! Adonijah asks to have Abishag for wife. Solomon is enraged
and has Adonijah killed, (1 Kg. 2:17-25). Solomon acquires a
“harem” of concubines and wives, (Ecc. 1:8).
Caleb, Jerahmeel’s brother, had a wife and 2 concubines, Ephah
and Maachah, (1 Chron. 2:42- 48).
Manasseh’s “Syrian concubine” bears Machir, (1 Chron. 7:14).
Rehoboam “took 18 wives and 60 concubines,” (2 Chron. 11:18).
80
The Song of Solomon praises the beauty of the “Shulamite”
maiden and chooses her above 60 queens, 80 concubines and
virgins without number, (Song of Sol. 6:4-9). This is amazing in
light of the fact that virtually the whole church sees this story as an
allegory of Christ’s love for His church. If God detests or even
disfavors polygamy and concubinage, how can we think he would
put Christ in even a figurative position of choosing the church as the
best among His many wives and concubines? If polygamy and
concubinage are detestable, and if God planned to end these
practices at the cross, He would never use it as a symbol for any
part of the relationship between Christ and the church.
The practice of concubinage, with God’s approval, proves that
God does not fundamentally care about the number of sex partners a
person may have. The fact is clear, that God does not care
fundamentally about the sex act as such. He cares that the people
involved not do what is harmful to each other.
Rom. 13:10 says,
“Love does no wrong to his neighbor, love therefore is the fulfillment of the
law.” In sex as in all else, God requires that we not harm others.
Otherwise, He is not demonstrably concerned with who has sex
with whom or how often. As with polygamy, concubinage
demonstrates the Biblical reality that sexual activity is not inherently
dirty, and that God’s demand is not that one man has sex with only
one woman for life. Concubinage, just as polygamy, provided a
God approved outlet for the greater sexual desire of the male. If
providing for the actual fulfillment of the sexual desire is not
wrong, then obviously the desire itself is not wrong. Even God
acknowledges this, by accepting, and even legislating in favor of
concubinage.
81
CHAPTER FOUR
GOD’S EROTIC POETRY –
THE SONG OF SOLOMON
Nowhere in the Bible do we find a clearer illustration of God’s
attitude toward sex and the human body, than in the Song of
Solomon.
Few people understand the graphically erotic nature of
this love poem. Its explicit yet unashamed eroticism has been the
cause of problems for commentators even before NT times.
Spiros Zodhiates says this about the book, “Because of its explicitly erotic
character, ancient Jews and Christians alike rejected its literal
interpretation and allegorized it…
The early Christian inability to
deal with this book at the literal level was influenced more by the
Greek philosophy of the time than by the Bible itself…The erotic
nature of the book was probably a source of embarrassment, but
these legal God-ordained gaieties should not be shunned, only properly
understood…” (Hebrew Greek Key Study Bible, introduction to Song of
Solomon emph. mine, D.C.).
Other commentators are likewise
straightforward in labeling this book as erotic poetry.
The issue of whether the book is to be interpreted literally or
allegorically is irrelative. That God used erotic language in either
case, says something about God that we must consider carefully.
If the language God uses in this book is unfitting to be used in a literal
sense how can we possibly argue that it is good to use it in an
allegorical sense? If the allegory is appropriate, then so is the
language in which the allegory is framed.
Sex and sexual language,
in this case very explicit sexual language, cannot be inherently nasty
and still be used as an allegory for Christ and the Church. The
human body cannot be considered shameful and yet be used as an
allegory of Christ’s delight in His Bride, the church. It cannot be
vulgar to describe the sexual body parts of the opposite sex, and at
the same time good to use such descriptions to allegorize Christ’s
love for His Bride. Like it or not we have here a book in which God,
through the Holy Spirit, uses the most explicit sex language some
people will ever hear. The language God uses here and the sexual
situations He describes, cannot be thought of in any other way than
that God delights in and approves of what He is writing about. In
doing so, God reveals more about His attitude toward sex, the
naked human body, and the beauty and sexual eroticism involved
in looking at another’s sexual organs, than most church leaders and
82
most Christians can handle. Most of them will not accept the literal
references of this book. In his commentary on the Song of Solomon,
Adam Clarke overtly condemns much of it as being too sexually
graphic for even true translation. Some have even decided that the
book should not even be accepted as Divinely inspired, on the sole
basis of its erotic language.
So here we have a book, inspired by God, that deals intentionally
and positively with all aspects of sexuality, without shame or
apology. This is truly erotic poetry. It was inspired by God. What is
recorded in this little book stands as God’s testimony to sexual
experience and the beauty of the human body. Let’s look at what is
there.
A woman asks for the kisses of her lover, “Let him kiss me with
the kisses of his mouth,” (1:2). Later, she says, “his mouth is full of
sweetness,” (5:16), and he says, “her mouth is like the best wine,” (7:9).
In both these last two cases the same Hebrew word for “mouth” is used (Strong’s #2441). It means the inside of the mouth. The
marginal note says it literally means “palate.” She is asking for, and they enjoy, deep mouth kissing. The Anchor Bible,
commenting on these verses, says these verses were “explicit references to kisses…including amative oral activities,” (i.e. oral sex).
That is, not only the lips, but also the tongues were involved, and not only the mouth, but other parts of the body were involved, including kissing the genitals.
The Jerusalem Bible also implies that the kissing
was all over the body: “Your lips cover me with kisses.” So right at the
start of this poem, we have references to an activity that most
“holy” people can’t believe to be in the Bible. But the references are
there! And it only gets “worse!” (?)
The sexual closeness of the couple has excited the woman and
she says: “While the king was at his couch, my spikenard gave forth its
smell,” (1:12). This refers to the custom of perfuming her sexual
parts. Her rising body heat caused the smell of her perfume,
mingled with her natural sexual musk, to fill the air.
“How handsome you are my beloved, and how luxurious is our
couch,” (1:16) is an unabashed reference to her delight in looking at
him and delighting in the place where they make love. He asks to
“see your form…for your form is lovely,” (2:14). He wants to look at
her body because she had a great figure! That he asks to look at her
83
naked body becomes apparent as we continue reading through the
book, noting the many description of her body, from head to toe.
There is an abundance of highly sexual images in this poem,
even though veiled from the modern reader. The translators
evidently could not bring themselves to actually translate many of
these words literally and demurred from literal translation in other
places because of the figurative references to explicit sex practices.
Adam Clarke, a highly esteemed and respected, conservative
commentator, wrote:
“There are many passages in it which should not be
explained…the references being too delicate; and Eastern
phraseology on such subjects is too vivid…Let any sensible and
pious medical man read over this book, and if at all acquainted
with Asiatic phraseology, say whether it would be proper, even
in medical language, to explain all the descriptions and
allusions in this poem.” (Clarke’s Commentary).
The questions we just must ask about such a statement, is: “Did
God intend that His people read this book, and understand it? And
did God realize that His language was too crude and indelicate to
be translated into language that the common person could
understand?”
If God caused it to be written, He intended it to be
understood, and if God inspired the language of this book, then our
assumption must be that this inspired language is appropriate.
Surely such statements as the above reflect more upon Mr. Clarke’s
faulty sense of propriety than it does upon the book itself. And surely
such attitudes impugn the spirituality and holiness of the God who
inspired this book.
If there is anything wrong with the language in
the Song of Solomon then there is fault with God, for He should
have known better than to use such language! How insane it is for
humans to think they have reached such a state of superior
morality, that they can correct God and overtly label anything He
does or says as “improper.”
Perhaps we humans actually
understand sex better than the God who created it! Perhaps God
should now condescend to adopt our moral standards, rather than
we adopting His! Perhaps God should have consulted such
superior intellects as Mr. Clarke’s before He wrote this erotic poem.
Surely Mr. Clarke would have been glad to guide God into a choice
84
of language that would have been “acceptable” to the human
reader! Surely we can think better than this.
The imagery in this book may be meant to be an allegory of
something else, but it is definitely sexual imagery, and is used in
other places in the Bible. “Fruitful” is elsewhere a reference to
sexual reproduction (Gen. 1:28), and “fruit of the womb” refers to
offspring, (Gen. 30:2).
Semen is called “seed” in Lev. 15:16. Today
we say a man “sows his wild oats”; a virgin has a “cherry”; testicles
are “nuts,” etc. Exactly the same sort of sexually euphemistic
imagery is used throughout the Song of Solomon.
One of the fruits that represented sexual activity in Israel was
the pomegranate. Because of its many seeds it has been a symbol of
fertility from the most ancient times.
In Mythology, the mother of
Attis conceived him by putting a pomegranate between her breasts.
A fertility deity that Naaman worshipped was called “Rimmon,” (2
Kg. 5:18), the same word that is translated “pomegranate” in Song of
Solomon (Strong’s # 7416, 7417).
So when the woman says “I would cause you to drink the spiced
wine of my pomegranate,” (8:2) she is not offering him a juice drink!
She is offering him her fertility, her sexual love. Some believe she is
asking for oral sex! But sex indeed is what she is after, for the next
line (8:3) shows that the couple is reclining, and his left hand
should be under her head while his right hand “embraces” her. It is
in this position that she tells him to drink of the juice of her
pomegranate. As Adam Clarke says above, those who are “at all
acquainted with Asiatic phraseology” can see the erotic reference
here.
“The fig tree puts forth her green figs…arise my love, and come
away.” (2:13) “Figs were used from early times as symbols of sexual
fertility. The word “fig” signified “vagina” in several
Mediterranean languages, and one only needed to split open a
purple fig to see why.” (Kevin Aaron, Journey From Eden, p. 196).
The obscene gesture of “giving the finger” by which the male penis
and testicles are manually represented, is also called “making the
fig.”
“Mandrakes” (7:13) also are figurative of sexual fertility. They
are called “love apples”, and the Arabs refer to them as “the Devil’s
testicles.” The mandrake root itself resembles a man’s sex organs.
Many cultures believed that mandrakes were an aphrodisiac; they
were thought to arouse sexual desire. This is the explanation
85
behind Rachel’s attempt to bargain with Leah for her mandrakes in
exchange for the sexual favors of Jacob, (Gen. 30:14-16).
“Pomegranates,” “figs,” “apples,” “grapes,” “mandrakes,” all to
be enjoyed “in the garden” – all these are erotic images, used over
and over in this poem, as now the woman and then the man use
these fruits to refer to their persistent passion for sexual love. All
this comes to a focus when we read that the young woman is herself
a “garden,” and she invites her male lover to “come into his garden
and eat its choice fruits!” (4:12-16).
For a parallel in Eastern poetry, read these lines from a
Palestinian poem:
“Your breast, O You, is like a pomegranate fruit,
And your eyes have captured us, by God and by the
Merciful One.
Your cheek shines as it were a damascene apple;
How sweet to pluck it in the morning and to open the
garden.” (The Anchor Bible)
An Egyptian poem has this similar line:
“I entered your garden and plucked your pomegranates…”
(The Anchor Bible)
Now if we were trying to explain the meaning of these lines,
(4:12-16), how would we go about it? Would you not have to
comment that the woman’s body, specifically her vagina, is the
“garden,” and that her invitation to her lover to “come into your
garden” and “eat its fruit,” is an invitation to enter her vagina and
make love to her. And wouldn’t you also need to mention that the
probability is also extremely high that oral lovemaking was a part
of this invitation?
The erotic power of this woman’s invitation arises from the fact
that this man’s “garden” (her body) smells delightfully of myrrh,
aloes, cinnamon and frankincense (4:13, 14). These spices were
much in use in those days, to perfume the sexual organs, and
provide a sensual aroma for the love bed. Prov. 7:18,19 reads: “I
have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes, and cinnamon. Come, let us take
our fill of love until the morning.” The Song of Solomon has the man
describing her beauty, specifically her breasts, then saying “Until
the day breaks, and the shadows flee away, I will get me up to the
86
mountain of myrrh, and to the hill of incense.” (4:5, 6). He is not talking
about a midnight hiking trip into the mountains! He is going up to
the “mountain” and the “hill” of her pubic area!
This woman is a “garden enclosed,” but she will open to her
lover. She invites him into his garden – her body – to eat her fruits,
and drink the water of her love (4:12-16). The Interpreter’s Bible says
this: “In Oriental imagery the wife is described in terms of a
fountain, and sexual enjoyment in terms of drinking water.” This
same symbolism is used in Prov. 5:15-20: “Drink water from your
own cistern…Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice with the wife of
your youth. Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts
satisfy (margin: “water”) you at all times; and be ravished always with
her love.” Eating and drinking are euphemisms for sexual activity as
are the “hind and doe,” images that repeatedly appear in Song of
Solomon.
After inviting him into her garden, the man responds as he says,
“I am come into my garden, my sister, my spouse; I have gathered my
myrrh with my spice; I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey; I have
drunk my wine with my milk,” (5:1). He has enjoyed all the delights
of her body. God evidently sees sex as a pleasant appetite to be
filled, not as something dirty and disgusting to be endured only
when it is necessary!
A marriage poem from Sumeria uses this same imagery, as the
bride speaks to the groom, enticing him with an erotic description
of her charms:
“My god, sweet is the drink of the wine-maid,
Like her drink, sweet is her vulva, sweet is her drink,
Like her lips sweet is her vulva, sweet is her drink,
Sweet is her mixed drink, her drink.” (The Anchor Bible)
In such lines as these, the references to oral lovemaking cannot
be missed. In both this Sumerian poem and in the Song of Solomon,
the delights of sexual love most obviously involve enjoying the
entirety of the partner’s body, and “eating” and “drinking” sexual
enjoyment until each lover is full. Objections to oral sex are imposed
upon people in spite of the Bible’s teaching. Such objections do not
come from the Bible.
Another scene depicts the male lover in this Song, as feeding
among the lilies (2:16,17); “My beloved is mine and I am his: he feedeth
among the lilies. Until the day break, and the shadows flee away, turn, my
beloved, and be like a roe or a young hart upon the mountain of Bether.”
87
The roe and the hart were known for their beauty and
sensuality. The reference in this case to the all night “feeding”
among the lilies, is an erotic reference to love making. From ancient
times, in many cultures the lily or lotus has been used as a symbol
for sexual activity. The term “lotus licking,” is just another way of
saying cunnilingus. Lilies are used in reference to the mons veneris.
The Anchor Bible says that feeding among the lilies on the “mountain
of Bether,” refers to the “mountain of division,” referring
transparently to the divided vulva. Because women perfumed the
“mountain” of their “division,” or vulva, Moffatt’s Translation
translates this line this way: “Play like a roe or hart on my perfumed
slopes.” References to the male lover “feeding among the dark lilies”
located at the “divided mountain,” virtually demand that we
understand this to be a reference to oral sex. And such a reference,
in this context, means God recommends such delightful activity for
the enjoyment of His children. We suspect these references are
among those phrases that Adam Clarke felt should not even be
explained by a doctor using medical language! In other words, even
if God Himself refers to oral sexual activity, we should not read it that
way, should not approve of it, and should never teach it to others.
This means that, even if God said it, it is wrong!
In another scene, (2:3,4), the man is likened to an apple tree,
beneath which the woman sits with great delight. “As the apple tree
among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down
under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste.
He brought me to the banqueting table, and his banner over me was love.”
The meaning of these phrases may be a general reference to love
making, but they can also clearly be taken as a reference to fellatio,
as she sits “under his shade” or between his legs, and pleasures him
with her mouth. The Anchor Bible says “one could hardly miss the
sexual sense of the metaphor.” The “meal” these lovers are eating
in the “banqueting house” is not physical food, but sexual love.
And “the banner of love” he spreads over her, is not a tapestry he
hung on the wall!
Having compared the man to an apple tree, the Song now says
the woman is a palm tree, which the man intends to climb! (7:6-9).
“How beautiful and how delightful you are my love, with all your charms!
Your stature is like a palm tree, and your breasts are like its clusters. I
said, I will go climb the palm tree, I will take hold of its fruit stalks: O may
88
your breasts be like clusters of the vine, and the fragrance of your breath
like apples.”
This man is going to delight himself in the sight and feel of his
lover’s breasts. As one would pick the fruit from the branches he
sees her breasts as the fruit he will pick: they will be as clusters of
the vine, ready to pick and eat. When she asks him to “sustain me
with raisin cakes, refresh me with apples, because I am lovesick,” (2:5),
she is asking him to delight in her body.
The Song refers to a woman’s breasts as “clusters of grapes”
hanging down, sweet to taste, delightful to behold and delightful to
touch. He mentioned one woman who had breasts like “towers”
and expressed concern that his little sister’s breasts had not yet
developed, (7:8; 8:8-10). The woman says “A bundle of myrrh is my
well beloved to me; he shall lie all night between my breasts.” (1:13).
God is obviously not embarrassed by a woman’s breasts. He
created woman’s breasts as much to be sexual objects as for nursing
children. For a man to delight in a woman’s breasts is pure and
natural. And the desire to “eat” the nipples as he would eat grapes
is not only normal, it is recognized by God as part of the very reason
He made women’s breasts as He did, and made them a delight to men.
In other words, the reason men like women’s breasts is because God
made women’s breasts for men to enjoy.
There are more such references to sexual love making, and the
pure delight of a man and woman looking at each other’s naked
bodies, and describing them in the most explicit fashion. Such
forthright sexuality in the Bible has been a real stumbling block for
humans. This book has been the source of more controversy than
any other Biblical book – only because of its sexual language. The
Song refers to the human body, sexual organs, and love making in
all its forms, as beautiful, wholesome and erotically satisfying. The
body is not something that must be covered. It is not “nasty” to
talk about the human body nor to delight in its naked, sexual
beauty. Rejoicing in sexual activity is not something only
“perverts” do. Enjoying the act of sex for the pure pleasure of it is
good, healthy, and blessed by God. This book stands forever as
God’s personal commendation of human sexuality as something
good and delightful for His children. What is “perverted” is the
opposite attitude, that sees human nakedness and sexual activity as
inherently “unclean” or “unholy,” and something that all truly
spiritual people avoid talking about or thinking about.
89
Consider this scene: “Come back, come back O Shulammite; come
back that we might gaze at you! Why should you gaze at the Shulammite,
as at the dance of Mahanaim,” (6:13).
In 7:1-6, the girl is wearing nothing but shoes, for the boy’s
description of her whole body moves from feet to head. Admiring
her “navel” refers to her vulva, according to Interpreter’s Bible. In
the context, the girl is dancing, (thus the shoes) and the people call
to her to “come back” or as we would say “encore!” so they can
continue to look at her naked body. As the girl dances the “dance of
Mahanaim,” she is evidently either totally naked, or covered only by
a sheer, see-through garment, for the lover sees her whole body,
and describes it in detail, (7:1-9). Not only he, but also a number of
onlookers watch this nude dance, and he teases them by asking
“why are you looking at the Shulammite while she dances?” He knows
that they look for the same reason he looks. This girl is
exceptionally beautiful and her figure is “lovely.” They are looking
with great admiration upon this naked girl. As she finishes her
dance they beg her to return so that they can continue to look at
her. The Interpreter’s Bible commentary says this was some special
dance apparently performed in the nude. The Pulpit Commentary
says the dancing girl may have worn clothing of a light texture
through which the details of her body and breasts could be seen,
“according to the mode of dancing in the East.” (Journey From Eden, p.
49). Such nude dances as these were common place in that culture.
Adam Clark thinks she wore “transparent garments,” which would
allow her body to be viewed. The girl was dancing in such fashion
that her breasts were visible and described as a perfectly matching
pair, “two young roes that are twins.” As she danced, her breasts
bounced like young roes jumping on the hill. This girl had breasts
like “towers” – large, firm breasts – and this was a major factor that
caused the man to delight in her, (8:10).
God designed the male body and the female body specifically and
intentionally to be sexually attractive to each other. There is such an
openness in this book in describing the body and the act of love
making, and such a delight in the whole process that we humans
surely should take thought about the legitimacy of our attitudes
toward these things. If God speaks this way about nakedness and
sexuality why is it wrong for us to do so? If God sees all this as
beautiful, clean, desirable and even “holy,” how can we view it as
dirty and needing to be kept in the closet?
90
This erotic poem also represents the girl as being equally
unabashed about enjoying the sight of her naked lover. No
blushing rose here! In 5:11-15, the woman describes with obvious
delight, the man’s naked body from head to toe, including
euphemistic references to his penis (“belly”). Strong’s #4578 says
mayaw refers to “the abdomen…by extension the stomach, the
uterus ( or of men, the seat of generation…)” or as one translator
wrote, “His rod is arrogant ivory,” indicating that she marvels at
his erect penis. She likes to look at his body, he likes to look at her
body, and as the preceding paragraphs show, others like to look at
both of them too. Appreciation of the beauty and sexuality of the
human body is recognized here. Men and women looking at each
others bodies and loving the sight, is approved of in these
Scriptures.
Studying the Holy Spirit inspired language of this book forces
us to reconsider the validity of all our presumptions, opinions and
convictions about anything sexual. We can see from the foregoing
study that there is nothing about the body and its sexual organs, or
using those organs for their created purpose, that is dirty enough or
“unseemly” enough for God to hesitate to write a book about if for
all the world to read and understand. If The Perfectly Holy God
Who created our bodies and sexual apparatus and made us such
that our most powerful passion is sexual passion, sees sex as we
read about it in this book, then we must admit that this attitude is
the right attitude. God’s attitude toward sex is the perfect attitude
toward sex. If God brings sex out of the closet for all the world to
see, then we must resist every urge to stuff it back in there.
Nothing in all the Bible suggests to us that we should not talk
about sex with one another, even using the real words for all the
parts of the body. We have created euphemisms for sexual love and
sexual organs because we have a sense of shame and impropriety
about these things and just can’t bring ourselves to talk about them
without “covering” our language. Thus instead of saying penis we
say pecker, rod, dick, tool, etc. When we must refer to a woman’s
vulva, we say pussy, cunt, pet, door, etc. etc. If we refer to
masturbation we have to say things like spank the dog, beat the
meat, pump the handle, etc. Why? Since the Creator of all things
sexual does not show embarrassment about sex, why do we?
Our attitudes have not been derived from the Bible. We
assume the Bible avoids sex and treats it as basically dirty. The truth
91
is that the Bible regards sex highly and counts it as one of the
greatest blessings humans can enjoy. If not for our jaundiced views
of sex and the human body we would be free to fully and openly
enjoy sex. If we were not ashamed of our bodies we would not feel
compelled to hide from the view of all others. All of our foolish
opinions about these issues come from church leaders who cannot
trust people to read their Bibles and draw correct impressions from
it about sexual matters. They have taken the practical position that
God did not sufficiently reveal to humans all the rules and
regulations we need in order to truly control sex. We believe we
must be more sensitive and secretive about sex than God is. We
think we know better than to use the same “crude” language of sex
that God used here.
The modern church has tried its best to help God out since
apparently, in many minds, He did not do an adequate job of
defining decency. Modern religious people are offended at the
suggestion that God would actually inspire such a book as Song of
Solomon. Yet the fact remains that this book is part of the inspired,
eternal Word. Any suggestion that its language and sexual
references are crude, unacceptable for decent society, vulgar, etc, is
an accusation against God’s Personal Holiness, Purity and
Righteousness. On the other hand, if we can accept that this book is
inspired by God Himself and that its sexual content is not
shameful, unholy or in any other way foreign to God’s character,
then we are in a position to be able to understand God’s true
attitude toward sex. God made sex. God made sex enjoyable. God
made human bodies. God made them beautiful to look at. God also
created men and women such that we experience automatic sexual
reaction to the naked bodies of others. God sees this as good. And it
is all in harmony with His essentially Holy nature. There is no dirt
connected with sex or human nakedness. All dirt exists in human
minds.
We do not defend vulgarity or disregard for public morals. We
do however, defend Biblical morality, and the Biblical manner of
referring to and thinking about sex. Our deeply rooted, underlying
assumption that sex is basically dirty, is the reason we cannot see sex
as Scripture actually presents it. If we can get over this one hump
we are well on the way to developing a healthy, Biblical view of
sex. May that day hasten for as many individuals as are able to look
at God’s Word objectively and escape their sexual prisons.
92
CHAPTER FIVE
ADULTERY
In sexual matters, adultery is probably the primary sin.
Adultery is without question sinful. No one who commits adultery
can expect to receive God’s blessing or forgiveness until repentance
has been rendered. We do not mean that adultery is any “worse”
than other sins. We simply mean that adultery is absolutely
condemned by God. No circumstances may bring adultery into the
“exception” area. However, when adulterers repent they receive
immediate mercy exactly like all other penitents.
Since adultery is unalterably evil, and is warned of through
both OT and NT, no serious study of sexuality can ignore it. At the
same time anything as hellish as adultery must be considered with
intense care so that we are certain we know exactly what it is and
what it is not. We are convinced that severe misunderstanding
surrounds this subject, just as it does other sex matters. The
consequence of this misunderstanding takes at least the following
forms:
• People think adultery is particularly a sexual sin. It is not, as
we will show.
• Because people do not understand the true nature of adultery
many commit adultery unawares. Having done nothing
“sexual” they do not realize they have committed adultery.
• Some marriages that should be dissolved continue in
relentless misery simply because neither party has been sexually
unfaithful. Since “adultery” (as they conceive it) has not been
committed they think they are bound by God’s law to remain
married.
The truth about adultery will prove both liberating and
restricting. Truth here will enable some people to live without fear
of having committed this sin. Truth here will also bring some under
conviction of having “adulterated” against their mates even though
they have been sexually faithful to them. Let us look at what the
Bible actually says about adultery. Once again, we begin with
definitions of the Biblical words.
93
Definitions:
Heb. “To apostatize; a woman that breaks wedlock.” (Strong’s #’s
5003, 4, 5)
Gk. moixeia, “to commit adultery, a (male) paramour; fig. apostate,
adulterer.” (Strong’s #’s 3428, 3429, 3430, 3431, 3432)
“…adultery, an adulteress.” Moixalis, an adulteress, applied as an
adjective to the Jewish people who had transferred their affections
from God.” (E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Concordance to the English and
Greek New Testament, pg. 28.)
“The parties to this crime, according to Jewish law, were a married
woman, and a man who was not her husband…Symbolically
adultery is used to express unfaithfulness to covenant vows to God,
who is represented as the Husband of His people.” (Smith’s Bible
Dictionary, pgs. 21, 22)
“(The words) mean ‘to commit adultery’ or ‘to seduce’…to
adulterate, illicit intercourse, adulterer, lover, adulterous,
adulteress, mistress, harlot.” (Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament, pg. 605, 606)
“In Scripture, (adultery is) sexual intercourse by a married man
with another than his wife, or by a married woman with another
than her husband. It is distinguished from fornication, which is
illicit sexual intercourse by an unmarried person…It is a violation
of the original, divinely instituted marriage bond. Adultery
involves more than physical promiscuity. It also violates the
integrity of the person. The penalty for adultery in OT is death; no
partiality is shown the man: both parties in the act are equally
guilty.” (ISBE, vol. 1, pg. 58, 59)
Some observations must be made relative to this last quote. It is
not true that Scripture defines adultery as “sexual intercourse by a
married man with another than his wife.” As we will see, Scripture
does not recognize the possibility of a man, married or unmarried,
committing adultery except when he violates the married status of
the woman. Otherwise a man might copulate with numerous
concubines, slaves and even prostitutes without committing
adultery. As our study on polygamy and concubinage proved,
many of God’s choicest servants “had intercourse with another
than his wife” and was never charged with adultery, nor suffered
94
any rebuke or correction from God. Further, as we will
demonstrate, adultery is not the simple sexual act committed with a
married woman, but is the intent to deprive the husband of his property.
Further, it is not true that “fornication…is illicit sexual
intercourse by an unmarried person…” While this definition seems
to be standard in much writing and teaching it is nevertheless not a
valid lexical definition, and it does not meet the test of Biblical
usage. Fornication is a generic word, and is defined strictly as “any
illicit sexual activity.” “Fornication” does not in itself specify any
sex act as illicit. It encompasses all sexual acts that Scripture
defines as “illicit.” Unless Scripture defines “sexual intercourse by
an unmarried person” as illicit then the word “fornication” does
not apply to that act. “Fornication” has no inherent relationship to
the married status of the person committing it. Both married and
unmarried people may commit fornication by engaging in any act
that the Bible defines as illicit. Such acts as adultery, rape, bestiality,
incest, pedophilia and forced prostitution, are generically defined by
the word “fornication.” We will discuss the ramifications of these
observations as we proceed. Let us examine the Biblical references
to the sin of adultery.
Scripture References to Adultery:
Reuben lays with Bilhah, Jacob’s concubine, (Gen. 35:22). He is
cursed for this act, (Gen. 49:4). The adultery in this case is sexual
intercourse with a woman who belonged to another man.
Potiphar’s wife wants Joseph to have sex with her. He refuses,
giving the reason that “you are his wife,” (Gen. 39:7-9). Joseph
believes that to commit adultery is a “sin against God.” We wonder
if Joseph might have copulated with her if she had been
unmarried? The answer to that question must be determined by
what the Bible says about sex under those specific circumstances.
Joseph is concerned about what violates God’s will. Whether he
would copulate with this or any other woman, depends on what
God had spoken about particular situations. We must not jump to
conclusions before we study the evidence.
Adultery is strictly forbidden, (Ex. 20:14; Deut. 5:18, 21). One
may not “covet” a man’s wife or anything else that belongs to him,
(Ex. 20:17). Note first that these Scriptures do not deal with the act
of being sexually attracted to a woman even if she is married. They
95
deal with “coveting” which by definition, means to desire to deprive
another by taking what is his. Thus one cannot “covet anything that is
thy neighbor’s.” The desire to take what belongs to another is a sin.
So obviously a man cannot desire to take another man’s wife. But
this says nothing about sexual attraction to a neighbor’s daughter.
Can a man look at his neighbor’s daughter and be moved by sexual
attraction to the point of wanting to marry her? Certainly. But he
cannot look at his neighbor’s wife that way.
One must not commit adultery with a neighbor’s wife, (Lev.
18:20; 20:10).
Copulating with another man’s slave requires sacrifice, (Lev.
19:20). Since adultery is not dealt with on the basis of offering a
sacrifice, but by extracting the death penalty, it is obvious that this
act is not adultery. A man’s slave is not in the same category as his
wife. This is using another man’s property without paying
appropriate compensation. This is stealing. It requires a sin
sacrifice, not for the sex act, but for the theft of another’s property –
his sole rights to the sexual property of his slave.
Unfaithful wives are to be tried by priests, and punished if
guilty, (Num. 5:11-31).
A man who commits adultery with a married woman brings
death to both, (Deut. 22:22).
If an engaged virgin lies with another man in the city, both must
die, (Deut. 22:23-24). She dies for not “crying out,” and he dies for
humbling his neighbor’s wife. Because she was engaged she was
considered as good as married and therefore she was already the
sole sexual property of her betrothed/husband. Thus sex with
anyone other than her fiancé is “adultery.” The fact that she did not
“cry out” implies that her sexual act was consensual; i.e. she was not
raped. But if a man rapes an engaged virgin in the country, only he
dies, (Deut. 22:25-27). The presumption here is that the virgin
“cried out” but no one could hear her. The presumption is “rape”
which carries the death penalty against the rapist only.
If a man seizes an unengaged virgin and copulates with her he
pays the bride price to her father, marries her and can never
divorce her, (Deut. 11:28-29). This is his penalty for forcing himself
on her and ruining her as a prospect for carrying on the pure
96
lineage of another man as his wife. If she had voluntarily copulated
with him there would have been no penalty except that the man, if
discovered, would have to either marry her or pay her father a
dowry. We will note in passing that this text and similar texts
recognize the act of sex between unmarried people, but do not
define it as “fornication.”
“If I have been enticed by a woman or lurked at my neighbor’s door…”
i.e., If I have sinfully desired to take my neighbor’s wife, (Job 31:9).
His self-imposed curse is, “let others have sex with my own wife,” (vs.
10).
“Wisdom” delivers us from the “the immoral woman” and the
“seductress… who forsakes the companion of her youth; her house leads to
death,” (Prov. 2:16-19). This refers to an adulteress, a married woman
who forsakes her husband for other men.
The lips of an immoral woman drip honey. In the end she is as
bitter as wormwood; her feet lead to death and hell. Do not ponder
her way of life; she is unstable, (Prov. 5:3-6). Again, as defined by
2:16-19 and all else in Scripture, this is a married woman who leaves
her husband for other lovers. See also Prov. 5:7-14.
Rejoice with the wife of your youth; let her breasts satisfy you;
why be enraptured by an “immoral woman?” (Prov. 5:18-20). This
verse does not forbid marrying more than one woman. Nor does it
forbid all circumstances of copulation with a woman other than
one’s wife. This is proven quickly by the fact that the author,
Solomon, had 699 wives after the “wife of (his) youth” plus 300
concubines. This text demands faithfulness to the original wife. She
is not to be neglected, but is to receive favored attention and full
satisfaction in all aspects of marriage, especially sex.
God’s commandment is a lamp to keep one from the “evil”
woman, a seductress. Don’t lust after her beauty in your heart,
(Prov. 6:24-26). There is great harm to one who goes in to his
neighbor’s wife. So these are references to adultery; sex with a
married woman. One who commits adultery – steals another man’s
wife – lacks understanding and destroys his soul; he reaps wounds,
dishonor, lasting reproach and a husband’s fury, (vs. 32-35).
A young man meets an ”immoral woman” who is “rebellious” and
“would not stay at home,” (Prov. 7:7-11). She seduces him, (vs. 13ff),
97
promising “my husband is not at home,” (vs. 19, 20). This is a married
woman, an adulteress. The young man yields to temptation and
suffers the consequences, (vs. 21-23). Do not fall into her trap,
avoid her, she leads to death, (vs. 24-27).
A “foolish woman” entices the “naïve” to come in to enjoy “stolen
water” and “bread eaten in secret,” but death is in her house, (Prov.
9:13-18).
The mouth of an immoral woman is a deep pit. The Lord abhors
those who fall in it, (Prov. 22:14). A harlot is a deep pit, a seductress
is a narrow well. She victimizes men and increases the “unfaithful”
among men, (Prov.23:27). This is an adulterous woman; a married
harlot. She refuses to admit guilt, (Prov. 30:20).
More bitter than death is the woman who is a snare, etc. A man
who pleases God escapes her, but she snares sinners, (Ecc. 7:26).
Exactly why this woman is a snare is not specified. In light of all we
have seen she must be an adulteress.
Israel turned from God to spiritual and sexual adultery with idols,
(Isa. 57:4-8).
Israel “tore off her bands and…lay down as a prostitute,” (Jer. 2:20).
Like a wild donkey in heat, she mated quickly with any male that
pursued her, (vs. 24). This is a married woman who tore off the
bands of her marriage vows to commit adultery.
Israel is so skilled at adultery that she can teach even the “worst
of women,” (Jer. 2:33).
Israel has “lived as a prostitute with many lovers,” (Jer. 3:1). There
is no place where she has not been ravished, (vs. 2); she has no
shame, (vs. 3); She has committed adultery everywhere, (vs. 6).
God divorced her and sent her away because of her adulteries yet
Judah followed her example, (vs. 8). Her immorality mattered so
little to her that she “defiled the land, committing adultery with wood
and stone,” (vs. 9). She is like a woman “unfaithful to her husband,”
(vs. 20).
Because of God’s judgment, Israel will pursue adultery in vain,
(Jer. 4:30). That is, Israel will try to leave God and find safety,
provision and blessing with another “husband” but God will not
allow her to be satisfied.
98
God supplied Israel’s needs yet she committed adultery &
thronged to the houses of prostitutes, (Jer. 5:7). She is like “lusty
stallions, each neighing after another man’s wife.” This is adultery. As
judgment, God will give their wives to other men, (Jer. 8:10). Wait a
moment! If God gives their wives to “other men,” is God going to
sovereignly make “adulterers” out of these “other men?” Is God
going to simply impose a sinful condition upon them? This cannot
be. But this situation will help us see that simple sexual relations
with another’s mate is not “adultery.” Something else is required
in order for the sex act to be adulterous.
Israel is full of adulterers and unfaithful people, (Jer. 9:2).
“He that looks upon a woman to lust after her has committed adultery
already with her in his heart,” (Matt. 5:27, 28). We will return to this
classic statement later.
“Everyone who divorces his wife except for … unfaithfulness, makes
her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits
adultery.” (Mt. 5:32; Mk. 10:1ff; Lk. 6:18ff).
“An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, but no sign will
be given,” (Mt. 12:39).
“Whoever will be ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous
generation…” (Mk. 8:8).
“If while her husband lives, she is joined to another man, she shall be
called an adulteress, but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so
that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.” Rom.
7:3.
“Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers inherit the kingdom
of God,” (1 Cor. 6:9).
“The deeds of the flesh are evident, which are immorality,
impurity….” (Gal. 5:19).
“Whoremongers and adulterers, God will judge,” (Heb. 13:4).
“Adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that friendship with the
world is enmity with God?” (Jas. 4:4).
99
Comments and Observations:
The single greatest fear prohibiting people from enjoying the
range of sexual pleasure available to them is the fear of adultery.
This is to be expected. Adultery is condemned and those who are
guilty are threatened with severe punishment. No holy person will
even consider committing adultery. But is it crucial to our study to
understand what adultery actually is: not what it is said to be “by
those of old time.” Definitions matter supremely. Biblical examples
must be understood. Most of our paranoia about adultery comes
not from the Bible but from incorrect information handed down to
us for generations. Adultery has traditionally been defined as “sex
with someone other than our marital mate.” This definition of
“adultery” is false for two reasons:
1] It is not the true meaning of either the Greek or the
Hebrew word;
2] It does not meet the test of agreement with Biblical
examples.
Both adultery and prostitution are considered in Scripture to be
governed by property rights rather than by purity codes. Consider
again these quotes from above, (emphasis by the present authors).
Adultery is defined as, “To apostatize; a woman that breaks
wedlock.” (Strong’s # 5003, 4, 5)
“Symbolically adultery is used to express unfaithfulness to
covenant vows to God, who is represented as the Husband of His
people.” (Smith’s Bible Dictionary, pgs. 21, 22)
“…adultery, an adulteress.” Moixalis, an adulteress, applied as
an adjective to the Jewish people who had transferred their affections
from God.” (E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Concordance to the English and
Greek New Testament, pg. 28.)
“A young man meets an ”immoral woman” who is
“rebellious” and “would not stay at home,” Prov. 7:7-11.”
“Israel “tore off her bands and…lay down as a prostitute,” Jer.
2:20. This is a married woman who tore off the bands of her
marriage vows to give herself to another husband.
These statements suffice to demonstrate the core issue of
adultery. Adultery is committed by a woman who rebels against her
100
husband in going after sex with other men, or in other ways giving
her resources to them and depending on them, relating to them as
if they were her real husband. It is adultery because the husband
has not granted her freedom to have such association with other
men. She is his property (according to OT concepts) and she must
not breach his property rights by giving to others what he reserves
for himself alone.
A man commits adultery by taking from the married woman
what her husband has claimed as his sole privilege. It is this
“property rights” issue that distinguishes adultery. Strictly
speaking adultery is not a sex issue. Adultery is not “sex with
someone other than one’s spouse.” Adultery is taking what belongs
to someone else.
Adultery is not merely a sexual act. As we read from Scripture
Israel committed “adultery” against God numerous times yet all of
us understand that God and Israel never had sex, nor did “Israel”
as a nation have sex with other nations. Adultery is a matter of
rebelling against one’s spouse then putting trust in, depending on,
transferring one’s affections to another mate. By aligning herself
with foreign nations and taking their gods for herself Israel
committed adultery against God who was her true Husband. She
left God for another mate. Many things constitute adultery other
than a sex act. And a sex act itself is not adulterous unless it violates
the claim of exclusive ownership by one’s spouse. In other words, if
exclusive rights to a wife’s sexual favors is not claimed by a husband
then if his wife has sex with another man she has not thereby
committed adultery. There is no “rebellion” in her act and she has
in no way been “unfaithful” to her commitment to her husband.
She has not “broken the bands” of her marriage. If her faithfulness
to her marital commitment is not injured, the sex act has no moral
repercussions and it is not “adultery.”
It is impossible for us to perceive life as did Israel and her
neighbors. We have made many strides in the past few decades
toward realizing the full rights of women. We no longer have a
culture in which men generally consider women as “property.”
Especially in the Western world husbands do not feel they “own”
their wives. Women are granted liberty and privilege in every walk
of life, including marriage. But for us to understand the Biblical
concept of “adultery” we must understand that to the men of that
101
age a wife was as much his personal property as was a slave, a
horse or a house. His wife was granted more consideration that a
slave but she had very little more freedom or authority. From the
time of espousal the woman “belonged” to the man. Therefore for
another man to attempt to win a woman away from her fiancé was
considered “adultery.” Even if the two never had sex, any romantic
complicity between a fiancé and another man was “adultery.
Likewise in a marriage the husband maintained sole rights to
everything that pertained to his wife, including her sexuality.
Israelite men especially protected this sexual exclusivity because
his wife’s child-bearing capacity was absolutely crucial to his tribal
standing and posterity. A man’s future depended on his having
many children, especially sons. But these children must be his, and
not another man’s. Anything that might in anywise raise a doubt
about whether a child truly was his own was potentially
devastating to an Israelite husband. Their clannish, tribal Hebrew
culture demanded that a man have only “pure” offspring to receive
his inheritance. Otherwise his inheritance might fall into the hands
of another family.
The OT concept of adultery can be understood only when we
view it in light of its cultural setting. A man’s problem with a wife’s
sexual adultery was not merely a problem with her having sex with
another man. It was a problem with potential destruction of his
tribal lineage; a problem with knowing whether her children were
actually his. We have no such cultural concerns today, so it is hard
for us to see the importance of this issue. But to them it was a
survival matter.
And adultery was not limited to sexual unfaithfulness. Adultery
was a matter of being unfaithful to the marriage covenant. A man’s
wife could not leave him and live with another man as long as she
did not have sex with the second man. Property rights came into
play. Since she belonged to her husband, to leave and go to another
man was to participate in marital theft; taking the husband’s
property (herself, her presence, her abilities, her house-keeping,
cooking, etc.) and giving it to another man. Because she was an
accomplice to this theft she was as guilty as the second husband
and they were both to be executed. Adultery was, and is, breaking
marriage, destroying the marriage bond. There are more ways to
do this than mere sexual unfaithfulness. When a man abuses his
wife physically, mentally, emotionally or financially, he has
102
“broken covenant” with her and is an “adulterer.” Most marriages
in our society are formed around public vows whereby a man
swears before God and human witnesses that he will “love, cherish,
and honor” his wife, and promises to “protect and provide for her”
as well as to “keep myself (sexually) for you alone.” Any breach of
those vows is “adultery.” If a man makes six distinct vows, and
breaks all but one of them, how do we consider him “faithful?” If a
man honors his sexual vow but refuses to “love, honor, cherish,
protect and provide” for his wife has he been faithful to the
marriage covenant? Absolutely not!
Consider too, that whatever is not mutually enjoined upon each
other by the marriage covenant cannot be made a matter of
adultery. Suppose neither of the pair vowed to love, honor, cherish,
protect and provide for the other. To fail in any of those specifics
would not constitute breaking marriage covenant because none of
them was a part of that covenant. And if the couple did not vow to
grant the other exclusive rights to their sexuality, then to have sex
with someone else would not constitute breach of marriage
covenant. In other words it would not be adultery. It could not
possibly be so because sexual exclusivity was not a part of the
covenant. We say it again for emphasis: adultery is not “having sex
with someone other than one’s spouse.” Adultery is breaking the
marriage bond. Whatever breaks that bond is adultery. If a husband
and wife did not “bind” themselves to sexual exclusivity, then for
either of them to have sex with a third party is not adultery. It may
be something terrible, but it is not adultery.
If this is almost too outlandish to accept, put yourself again in
the OT setting and think of a righteous man like Jacob. He married
Leah first, then Rachel. Did he commit adultery with Rachel? Or
was it OK just because they were both married to him? Well, then
consider Judah’s encounter with his daughter-in-law Tamar (Gen.
38). He thought she was a prostitute and paid to have sex with her.
But even though adultery was a serious crime he was not accused
of adultery. Instead, when the affair was discovered he suffered
nothing more than a mild embarrassment at not having fulfilled his
promise to her. Maybe Abraham will help us again. He was
married to barren Sarah. In order to have children she could claim
as her own, Sarah insisted that Abraham copulate with Hagar,
Sarah’s maid. Abraham did so, thus having sex with someone other
than his wife. But Abraham did not commit adultery. Nor did he
103
commit any sort of sexual sin. Or how about all the others who had
wives yet without a second thought had sex with their wive's
“handmaidens,” with concubines, with slaves and with prostitutes.
All of this occurred under a law that mandated the death penalty
for both the man and woman caught in adultery. The sexual
proclivity of men like David, Solomon, Gideon and others was
public knowledge. If having sex with so many women to whom
they were not married was “adultery” why were none of those men
ever accused? Why were none of them ever punished? The truth
stares us right in the face doesn’t it? In a culture that knew exactly
what adultery is and is not, and took severe measures to do away
with adultery, having sex with people other than one’s mate was a
common occurrence, yet was never treated as adultery. Indeed it was
never treated as even unusual. Think about it! Even godly men
going in to prostitutes was not thought to be anything worth
fretting about. Doesn’t it make you wonder how we got all our
concepts about the sordidness of all sex except monogamous
intercourse in the missionary position?
In the OT system a slave woman who has sex with a man other
than her master is not considered an adulteress. She and her lover
are not to be killed, “because she has not been emancipated,” (Lev.
19:20-22). The law demands “damages” instead. The sexual act
itself was not “defiling,” otherwise there could not have been such
leniency on God’s part. The law in this case gives the reason for
leniency: she is a slave, not a wife. Thus “adultery” can be
committed only with, and by a woman who is free to “rebel”
against her husband. It is a property rights matter. In Scripture
adultery is primarily an offense against property. It is theft – whether
actual or intended – of another’s property.
An objective study of Biblical sex law makes one thing clear:
sexual practice was largely regulated by the principle of respect for
sexual property. God forbade what violates one’s personal sexual
property (thus forbidding rape, incest, and parents prostituting
their children), and sexual property belonging to others (thus
forbidding adultery and requiring restitution for “using” another
man’s slave.). Bestiality is forbidden evidently as inherently
abominable and unnatural. All other sex laws have to do with
honoring the personal rights of the other parties involved.
Property is an extension of the owner. To violate my property is
to violate my person. It is to steal something from me. In marriage,
104
violation of property rights by taking, or seeking to take a married
woman from her husband, is adultery. The notion of personal
sexual property formed the foundation of OT sexual ethics.
Impurity and dirtiness did not define sexual sin but “covetousness”
the desire to have something that belongs to someone else, did. Not
impurity and dirtiness, but disrespect for the rights of others
defined sexual sin. In other words, sexual practices were not
condemned because they were “filthy, unclean and dirty.” Sex acts
were condemned because they in some way hurt other people.
Take away this factor and you eliminate virtually all regulations
against sexual activity. That is, if a sex act does not in some way
harm another person, it is not of concern to God. It is a matter of
personal choice.
Deut. 20:5-7; 28:30, etc, equates acquisition of house, vineyard,
and wife. The wife, like these other possessions, became the
property of the husband and of the husband’s family as well. This
seems to be the logic of the Levirate marriage law which required
that if a man failed to impregnate his wife his brother was required
to do so. (cf. the previous chapter on “Polygamy”) If the brother
refused, it was a disgrace because he was setting his personal
desires above the good of the family, (Deut. 25:5-10).
In Israel, if another man had intercourse with a married woman
it constituted theft of her husband’s right to legitimate offspring.
Purity of physical lineage was crucial to inherited property rights,
preservation of the family name, and Messianic lineage. To corrupt
this in any way was a gravely serious issue. Thus the OT law
against adultery applied only to a man having sex with a married
woman, because this act threatened her husband’s lineage. And a
man could not commit adultery against his own wife, because she
had no claim to him as her property. A man could copulate with as
many women as he desired without ever corrupting his family
lineage. So for a man to have sex with many women was not an
issue, as long as he did not copulate with another married woman. If
he copulated with a different woman every night for a month, and
only the last woman was married, then he committed adultery only
with the last woman. Adultery was an issue only with a married
woman. A married woman committed adultery if she ever had sex
with any other man, under any conditions. Yeah, I know: “Where’s
the equality in that?” With Jesus’ alteration to this situation, the
woman became equal property owner of the husband thereby
105
gaining the same privileges in sexual matters as he has. Granting
equal status to both husband and wife did not shackle both of them
with prohibitions against privileges that were available to the man
in OT law. It had the effect of opening to both man and woman the
same sexual privileges. We discuss this in detail below.
Adultery compromised the continuity of the family lineage.
Having legitimate, tribal heirs was a primary concern to Israelite
culture. This is why an Israelite man hesitated to marry a nonvirgin.
It was not that she was “defiled” or “dirty.” It was because
she might possibly be pregnant with a child that would be outside
the man’s pure lineage. It was for this same reason that a man did
not want his wife to have intercourse with another man. Not that
the sex act itself was sinful but that it threatened the purity of the
lineage and put in question legitimate inheritance of family wealth.
Take away these factors and adultery becomes a non-issue when a
man has sex with another man’s wife or if the wife has sex with
another man. If a sex act ceases to be a situation where a man’s wife
is being taken from him, or his rights to legitimate offspring are
threatened, or inheritance of family wealth is not compromised, or
Messianic lineage is not being compromised, then the act of sex
with the mate of another becomes something other than adultery.
Regardless of how we might otherwise define it, it is not adultery. It
may be good, bad or indifferent, but it is not adultery. A married
man, under OT law, could have sex with virtually any other
woman who was not already married. It was not adultery for him
to do so because the above circumstances were not a factor in his
actions. Adultery was a factor only when sexual intercourse
involved a married woman. It was always adultery for a married
woman to copulate with any other man. It was never adultery for a
married man to copulate with anyone other than his wife, unless
the other woman was married.
The 7th Commandment, prohibiting adultery, is in proximity to
that of theft, (Ex. 20:14,15). One is forbidden to covet his neighbor’s
house or wife or servant or ox or ass or other property, (Ex. 20:17).
Adultery refers to a man taking, or desiring to take, a married woman
from her husband. This concept of adultery is strange to the
Western world but only because we have adopted concepts that
suit our own cultural setting and that flow from our polluted
doctrinal inheritance. We understand adultery to be sexual activity
outside the marriage by either spouse. But OT teaching proves that
106
a woman who was another man’s property must not violate his
property rights, yet the same man could have sex with a single
woman, a prostitute, another wife, a concubine, a slave, a divorced
woman or a widow, without committing adultery. This fact proves
beyond doubt that the sex act alone does not breach marital status and
is not adultery.
We moderns define adultery as “betrayal of trust,” but the Bible
never does so. Scripture teaches adultery is theft of another man’s
property, or rebellion against covenant commitment. This is true even in
the NT. Jesus redefined adultery such that both the husband and
the wife could commit adultery against each other. In the NT the
woman owns her husband just as he owns her, (cf. 1 Cor. 7:3,4). So
his sexual freedom is no greater than hers. They share “equal
opportunity” both with each other, and with others. In Jesus’
teaching adultery is defined such that its nature was in divorcing
one’s spouse and marrying another without sufficient reason. This
was to discard one’s wife without consideration to her rights to him
as her property. He was destroying her rights to possess her
property. He also broke the covenant bond of permanency – i.e.
“until death do us part.”
So with Jesus and NT authors, intention becomes the main thing.
Even in the “looking at a woman to lust after her,” it is the intention
Jesus deals with. It is not the “looking” that is adultery, but it is the
intention to take away the man’s property and have it as his own; to
break up the marriage and marry the woman whom he “covets.”
This is why polygamy was not an issue with God. God’s
concern has never been with “who is having sex with whom, and
how?” For a man to have several sex partners was never a matter of
adultery, even if a Solomon had 1,000 sex partners, always
available. In the NT the same privilege remains for the man simply
because God never took it away. But now, because woman is
sexually and maritally equal with man this privilege is open for the
woman also. Since God did not change His law and did not forbid
polygamy in the NT, it remains a freedom for a man to marry many
wives, have several concubines and even visit prostitutes, without
the sin of adultery. Such multiple relationships were not sin in the
OT and are not classified as sin in the NT. Since man and woman
become equal in NT ethics God makes it possible for woman now
to enjoy the same privileges that were once open only to a man.
Rather than destroying a man’s former privileges and bringing him
107
down to a lower level, Jesus raises woman up to the man’s previous
level. What constitutes adultery in Jesus’ teaching is not having sex
with someone other than one’s spouse, but it is divorcing and
remarrying without just cause. It is getting rid of one’s mate– breaking
marriage covenant – that constitutes adultery in His example. It is
rebelling against the covenant vow to live together “until death do
us part.”
Purity of physical lineage is no longer an issue in marital sex.
Messianic lineage is no longer an issue. And it is obvious that
copulating with multiple partners was never a moral issue with
God. Thus it seems clear that since God does not change the basic
structure of sexual license for the man, woman’s privilege now is
the same as his – across the board. A man may have sexual
pleasure with another woman but he may not prohibit his wife
from enjoying the same pleasure with another man. Property rights
– the right to expect the husband/wife to remain husband/wife
and not seek divorce – remain intact. Covenant commitment – mutual
vows to be married until death – remain intact. Having sex with
other partners does not automatically threaten the marriage bond.
Neither husband nor wife is free to divorce their mate in order to
pursue other mates. This could be done in the OT. A man who was
not rich enough to have more than one wife could divorce her and
marry another. The change made by Jesus is that now mates must
remain married to each other and make their sexual practices fit
with their absolute commitment to remain married until death
separates them. The point is that Biblically nothing changed
relative to a man having sex with another woman than his wife.
What changed was Jesus opening to the wife equal privileges with
the husband. In NT ethics “marital fidelity” is not defined as sexual
exclusivity; it is defined as “fidelity” to mutual property rights, and
to covenant vows of lifetime marriage.
To protect both husband and wife Jesus prohibited divorce for
either husband or wife except on the grounds of covenantal
unfaithfulness. What breaks covenant is reason for divorce. What
does not break covenant is not valid reason for divorce. If vows
were made concerning sexual exclusivity those vows must be kept.
But since such vows were made, not by God’s requirement but by
man’s invention, they can be altered by mutual consent. If they are
altered so as to eliminate the demands for sexual exclusivity then
108
sexual non-exclusivity cannot break marriage, and cannot be the
basis of either divorce or adultery.
The basis of marriage is lifetime commitment to each other.
Sexual intercourse with another person does not imply anything
about that commitment. Adultery in the mind and in actuality, is
either the desire or the actual attempt to end a marriage where there
has been no breach of covenant. God demands that a man and
woman not attempt to sever their marriage ties unless their mate
has been unfaithful to their original vows. Biblical vows evidently
included only that they would remain married for life. If evidence
arose that one mate was attempting to rob the other of his/her
property by severing the marriage bond it became grounds for
divorce by the innocent party. Jesus makes this a valid reason for
divorce and remarriage (Matt. 5:32ff; 19:9ff; Mk. 10:1ff; Lk. 16:18ff).
He was not talking about one mate having sex with someone other
than his/her mate. He was talking about desiring, planning or
attempting to undo the life long commitment they made to each
other. The appropriate and Biblically provable definition of “adultery”
is “severing or attempting to sever the marriage bond.” Doing so,
even in thought, “adulterates” the bond, lessens it, destroys it.
In Jesus’ statement about divorce and remarriage, two
significant facts appear.
[1. Jesus said if a man divorces his wife except for cause of
unfaithfulness he “makes her commit adultery,” (Mt. 5:32). How can
this be so? The woman in this case has obviously not had sex with
another man. So if “adultery” is “having sex with someone other
than one’s spouse,” how do we make sense of this statement? Since
the woman is innocent in this case, it is not possible that the mere act of
divorcing her has somehow made her guilty of having sex with
another man!
The Greek word here is moixeuthenai (aorist tense, passive
voice). The form of this word is intriguing in that the passive voice
puts the woman, not in a position of doing something, but of
something being done to her. What is said here is that the woman in
this case has been forcibly made a participant, not in a sex act, but
in “marriage breaking.” Beck’s translation says, “makes her a
partner in adultery.” Tyndale’s translation says, “causeth her to
break matrimony.” This makes the matter plain. Adultery is “the
act of breaking marriage.” The case cited above forces the woman
against her will, to become a party to marriage breaking. And any
109
man that marries her is also forced to participate in “marriage
breaking.” Neither of them are guilty of illicit sex. The situation of
unjustifiable divorce has broken marriage illegitimately, and this is
what God considers “adultery.” The woman has “been made to
participate in marriage breaking.” Sex has nothing to do with it.
[2. Adultery, in Jesus’ words, does not mean “sex with someone
other than one’s spouse.” Jesus defines “adultery” in His own
words as “divorcing one’s wife without legitimate reason.” As we
have been saying, this demonstrates that “adultery” is the intention
or the actual act of “breaking marriage bond.” If the marriage bond
is not broken, i.e. if the “partnership” is neither threatened nor
destroyed, then “adultery” is not an issue regardless of what sex
has been participated in. If sexual activity has been enjoyed with a
man other than this woman’s husband yet there was no intention to
break the marriage, then the sex act did not break the marriage.
Again we say emphatically, adultery is not a sex act. One may have
sex with many partners and never even come close to committing
adultery just as occurred in thousands of instances in the OT. If we
can get our definitions right then we can get our thinking and our
theology right.
God never voiced displeasure with multiple wives or
concubines or even prostitution. God did demand that when a man
married a woman he remain married to her and never allow her to
be thought of as less than other women in his life. He is
commanded to rejoice in the wife of his youth, (Prov. 5:18), that is,
treat her with the honor, dignity and favor she deserves as his first
and most highly cherished wife. It doesn’t exclude other wives or
concubines. It demands that a man give priority to his relationship
with his first wife. This requires that he not demean her, neglect
her, deprive her of sexual pleasure, etc. It also means that he must
not seek to get rid of her in order to marry other wives.
We mentioned the importance of intent in this issue. NT teaches
that it is not the act itself that is sin so much as the motive that
drives it. In the statement, “he that looks upon a woman to lust after her
has committed adultery already with her in his heart,” (Matt. 5:27, 28),
the sin is neither in the looking nor in sexual desire. The sin is “to
lust after.” The words refer to covetousness. This is, looking with the
intention to possess what belongs to someone else. Adultery is
present in intention even when it is not enacted. This infers that
where sexual thoughts and even sexual actions are exercised
110
without the intention of taking another’s property then neither the
sexual thoughts nor the act itself is adultery. If both mates agreed that a
wife was free to copulate with someone other than her husband
then doing so would not be adultery. If there was no intention to
possess the woman for oneself and take her away from her
husband it would not be adultery even if they have sexual
intercourse. A woman may set her eyes on another man and plan a
way to take him away from his wife and have him for herself. This
is adultery even in the thought. But if the desire is only for sexual
pleasure then it does not qualify as adultery for the intent to deprive
another is not there. And as with other possessions, a man may
“lend” his tools, car, boat, etc. to other people with perfect
propriety. Borrowing is not stealing and it does not deprive the
owner of his property. But if a man enters his neighbor’s garage at
night and takes his tools against his will it is theft. A man must be
allowed to exercise control over what belongs to him. To do
otherwise is theft. No one suspects that a neighbor desires to steal
his car, boat, tools, etc. if the neighbor asks to borrow them. And for
one to desire to borrow his neighbor’s property in no way
compromises the neighbor’s sole rights to that property. Others can
use it only by permission of the owner. But the owner does have the right
to allow others to use it. The same principle is true of both men and
women in marriage. They each possess the other’s body. They have
equal rights, and sole rights to the sexual favors of their mate. A
husband may have intercourse with another woman if his wife will
allow another woman to “borrow” her property. And a wife can
have intercourse with another man if her husband is willing for
another man to “borrow” his property. If mutual consent prevails,
sexual non-exclusivity in no way breaks the marriage bond.
“Outrageous?” No, it is Biblical. Just go back again to the OT and
read the hundreds of examples.
The idea that “I do not want to share my mate with anyone
else,” suggests that something is lost if one’s mate has sex with
another person. The reality is otherwise. There remains as much
sexual pleasure available to the mate as before. Nothing is
diminished or lost unless there is intent to end the marriage.
Otherwise it is nothing more than sexual pleasure, the same as it
was enjoyed by Abraham, Jacob, Judah, Gideon, Samson, David,
Solomon, etc. Can we get it in our mind that sex, in and of itself,
has no moral quality? Sex is a biological function. We have stated that
111
sex in humans is of no more moral consequence than is sex in
animals. It is only when sex is used in such a way that others are
harmed or their personal rights are disregarded that sex becomes
wrong. God’s laws for sex relate directly to this one issue. No one is
allowed to try to steal my wife from me or me from her. My wife is
not free to ditch me so she can marry someone else and I cannot
divorce her so I can remarry. Even the desire to do so is adultery.
Our vows to be united for life are God’s required vows. Having sex
with another person is not a part of that equation except when it
breaches one partner’s sole ownership of his/her mate’s body. If
either or both mates grant permission and freedom then sexual
experience may be enjoyed with other people. It no more threatens
their marriage bond than borrowing one’s tools threatens the
owner’s possession of them.
Wives of OT saints did not “share” their husbands with other
women for they lost nothing by their husband’s sexual activities
with other women. If a wife has sex with another man the husband
has not “shared” her with the other man. He still “possesses” his
wife as his own and he still has as much of her sexual favors as he
desires plus all other marital blessings. If a woman’s husband has
sex with another woman the wife has not “shared” him with the
other woman. She still “possesses” her husband as her own and she
still has as much of his sexual favors, protection, provision, etc. as
before. In either case the husband and wife must not diminish the
sexual pleasure desired by their mates. If they exercise themselves
sexually outside the marriage they must be faithful to the needs of
their mates at all times. These things said, there is no reason for
men not to enjoy the same sexual advantages now that God’s
holiest men did in OT. And since women are now sexual equals
with men there is every reason to liberate them, inform them of
their privileges, and release them to take advantage of their sexual
freedom and enjoy this wonderful pleasure to their full satisfaction.
Men have always had this privilege (in spite of church dogma). Are
we “man enough” to grant it to our women?
We do realize that this sounds radical. But we encourage
readers to reflect again on the fact that this very situation prevailed
in OT Israel with God’s approval, with the exception that only the man
could enjoy this privilege and that he enjoyed it whether or not the
wife approved! How, when and why does it become “crude”
“lascivious” “promiscuous” etc. to continue the same freedom for
112
the husband but now open it also to the wife? In other words how
could it be a blessing for the man then but a curse for the woman now?
How can we accuse God of vulgarity and other such accusations by
implying that He should never have sanctioned these very
situations? And how can we think we have a better concept of
sexual propriety than God does? If we can get it in our minds that
adultery is to deprive another of their property we will cease to have
difficulties with this subject. The advantage granted by the ethics of
the NT is that now the woman has a voice in this whole arena and she
has the same sexual liberty as her husband. A parallel to this is the
raising of woman to the same spiritual status of the man so that she
can now exercise leadership in the church equally with the man.
What was not generally allowable in OT is now allowable in this
area. So it is with sexual liberty. Only the man could enjoy sexual
liberty then. Since God did not eliminate that freedom it remains
for the man. But because the gospel liberates woman and raises her
to the same status as man, now the woman can also enjoy the same
sexual liberty that man has always enjoyed. Man was not brought
down; woman was brought up.
What difference does this concept make? We believe that
marriages by the thousands can be saved if husband and wife can
accept the facts that sexual desire is natural and clean and that desire
for sexual pleasure is as normal now as it was in the OT. The desire
for more sexual pleasure is no more “perverted” or “unnatural” or
“unholy” than is the desire for more food! A husband’s appetite for
more food does not threaten the wife just because she does not
desire more. A wife’s desire for another helping does not threaten
the husband just because he is already full. It is no more sinful or
unclean today for men to desire sex with many women than it was
for David, Solomon, Gideon, and all the rest. If it was good then it
cannot be evil now! And it is not sinful or unclean for women to
desire to have sex with more than one man. The sex act itself is not
an issue with God. What God protects is the relationship we have
with others. He demands that we respect their personal rights, their
property rights, and our/their mutual commitment to lifetime
marriage. God requires only that husbands and wives do not sever
their marriage ties in order to pursue sex with other partners. If the
commitment to marriage ties remain strong there is no prohibition
against, nor limit to each spouse enjoying the sexual favors of
113
others. It was so for men in the OT. It is so for both men and women
now.
Spouses should not feel threatened by the desire of their partner
to have sex with another person. It is literally as natural and
common as the desire for water. Such a desire is not a lack of love
for one’s mate. It is nothing more than a desire for additional sexual
pleasure. When David added wives to his harem it in no way
implied a loss of love for his previous wife/wives. Neither partner
should feel threatened by their spouse’s desire for sexual variety.
Sex is not love, it is pleasure. When combined with love sex is
intensified, but sexual intercourse does not inherently imply love. It
certainly does not imply love in the animal world. That a spouse
desires sexual pleasure with others does not mean he/she loves
their mate any less. The love and the marriage bond of life-long
commitment is still as strong as ever. But they have opened
themselves up to pleasure that God has explicitly allowed for
thousands of years. We would do well to cease referring to sexual
activity as “making love” because truthfully, it has nothing
inherently to do with “love.” We could more appropriately call it
“having pleasure,” “enjoying sex,” or whatever, and thereby
eliminate the thought that to engage in sex with a person means we
“love” that person. There is no more reason to equate love and sex,
than to equate a back-rub and love; eating together and love; etc.
Sex with one we love intensifies the enjoyment and emotion of sex.
But in the same way eating a meal with one we love makes the
meal more enjoyable than eating with relative strangers. Marriages
that are founded on sex rather than love will not endure beyond the
physical limitations of our bodies and our physical capacity for sex.
Marriage founded on love will remain strong despite whatever else
comes along. We can and should make the effort required to rid
ourselves of the junk that fills our minds because of life-long
misinformation heaped upon us “by them of old time.” We can
give our partners a wonderful gift by giving them the freedom to
use their sexual liberty in ways that will enhance their joy of living
and increase their fulfillment.
These things being said, it may now be apparent to wives, that
when their husband “checks out” a beautiful woman he is not
somehow being “mentally unfaithful” to her, or wishing he had
married someone else, or no longer thinks she is beautiful, or no
longer loves her, or....… If a husband looks appreciatively at
114
another woman the wife need not feel hurt as though she has
somehow become less in his eyes. If a husband enjoys looking at
photos of beautiful, nude women, the wife should not think he has
become perverted and that she is an unworthy wife. When
husbands show such proclivity for the beauty and sexuality of
other women it implies nothing about the worthiness, sexuality,
attractiveness or anything else, of the wife. She should absolutely
not feel the least bit threatened. All it means is that her husband
enjoys sex and beautiful women in the same way David, Abraham,
Solomon and other great saints did. Surely no one believes that
when a couple marry then suddenly all other women become
unattractive to the husband and all other men become unattractive
to the wife. Possessing a beautiful house does not suddenly cause
all other houses to become ugly. Husbands do not suddenly
become blind to beautiful women when they marry and wives do
not suddenly become blind to handsome men when they marry.
Once married, husbands and wives do not cease to have any sort of
sexual response to other attractive people. It is unrealistic for
married people to expect their mates to never again take a second
look at an attractive person of the opposite sex. And it is not
necessary for married people to feel they must choke off sexual
urges and desires that simply exist. They do not need to feel that
they must “protect my property at all cost,” and thereby deny the
one they love some sexual adventure and pleasure that is legitimate
for them. And those who desire to take advantage of their sexual
liberty should not feel guilty or ashamed or condemned because
they have that desire.
A man should not feel the least bit threatened if his wife looks a
second time at a handsome, well-built man. There is absolutely no
excuse for jealousy in such a situation. If she comments on how
good-looking he is the man should be able to agree and be glad his
wife is not cowed and in bondage to unrealistic opinions and
expectations. What a wonderful thing it would be if all men would
allow their wives to open their eyes and enjoy the normal delight of
looking appreciatively at the other sex. How can a man truly love
his wife and refuse to allow her to fully experience natural,
legitimate emotions? If a man’s wife looks at other men and acts in
a way so as to suggest she might be having sexual thoughts about
other men he should not feel the least bit threatened by it. If a wife
enjoys looking at photos of well-built, nude men, the husband
115
should not feel the least bit inadequate as a lover or fear that he is
no longer satisfying his wife. Such “looking” implies nothing about
her commitment to their marriage, and nothing at all about her
husband’s attractiveness, sexuality or anything else. All it means is
that his wife enjoys sex and handsome men in the same way David,
Abraham, Solomon and other great saints loved beautiful women.
It means that she has come out of her shell, has been able to
straighten up her bent back, lift her bowed shoulders and raise her
head and gladly and confidently begin to enjoy her equal status
with her husband. The husband who genuinely loves his wife, who
can understand what this means to women in general and his wife
in particular, will rejoice and thrill in his heart that his wife has thus
come to full freedom and is able to do what few women have ever
been free to do. The very nature of “love” is the desire to give to the
loved one all that will make them happy; to sacrifice for the sake of
happiness and satisfaction of the loved one. The husband who can
understand and accept this will rejoice that his wife can fully enjoy
her whole person – soul, spirit, and body. Such a husband must be
very confident in himself and in his wife’s love for him. And a wife
who is offered such freedom should be able to see in it a gift of
supreme love and trust from a husband who desires for her
everything that she is able to enjoy and who trusts in her complete
devotion to him. Rather than being suspicious of his possible
“ulterior motives” she should see his gift to her of sexual liberty as
doubtless the greatest gift he is able to give her and to deeply
appreciate it as such and to demonstrate her appreciation by using
the gift! For a wife to extend to her husband such sexual freedom as
we have discussed requires a wife whose love for her husband rises
above suspicion, fear, jealousy and possessiveness and motivates
her to grant to him the liberty to enjoy everything that he can
legitimately enjoy. And she must trust in his complete devotion to
her. A husband who receives such a gift from his wife must surely
realize the great love she demonstrates in giving him the greatest
gift she is able to give him. He must be aware of the tremendous
depth of trust she has in him. Such a mutual gift of sexual liberty is
perhaps the clearest demonstration possible, of a couple’s mutual
commitment to the full growth and development of their partner.
If a married couple can overcome the mountainous hurdle that
has been placed before them in the opinions, traditions and cultural
standards of society and an ignorant church; if they can transcend
116
the fallacy that sex with anyone other than their spouse is utterly
forbidden, they are poised to begin exciting adventures together
heretofore unimaginable. They can go places together, do things
together, watch things together, talk about things together that will
enhance their enjoyment of life, of other people, and of each other.
If they have committed together to remain married no matter what
and then grant the gift of sexual freedom to their mate, they can do
nothing else that is so unselfish and so full of love and trust.
Jesus said, “the truth will makes us free.” Digging through the
morass of misinformation, traditional interpretation, doctrinal
error, prejudicial opinions, high minded dogmatism and outright
contempt for legitimate Biblical truth is a formidable task. But
finding Biblical truth is worth any effort required. We believe that
if people will sincerely study Biblical truth (rather than read it
superficially), and can accept Biblical truth (rather than yielding to
fear of breaching prevailing opinions), and are willing to think
through and draw correct conclusions for themselves from Biblical
truth, then they can step into sexual freedom with none of the
illegitimate baggage that would otherwise plague them. This takes
courage and determination. But the sexual freedom they gain for
themselves, and grant to each other would be so wonderful as to
make the price seem insignificant by comparison.
May women now, as men once did, experience the full freedom
of their equal status with men. And may men gladly grant to their
wives all the freedom that they should rightfully enjoy. May all
husbands and wives proceed together with gladness into the liberty
made possible by truth.
May they never again be shackled by unbiblical doctrines and
opinions of men.
Additional note on Rom. 7:1-4, relating to “adultery.”
Paul references the OT code regulating marriage from the
“patriarchal, wife-as-possession” perspective unique to the
cultural/national/messianic hope environment in which that code
was given. Referencing this code makes maximum impact upon
his Jewish readers for the purpose of helping them recognize his
point about being freed from the OT code entirely, (vs. 4). Thus, “I
am speaking to those who know the law,” (vs. 1). To reference this code
does not establish it as regulative for NT believers, any more than
to reference any OT ceremonial/sacrifice/holy day code would
117
become regulative for Christians. Jesus ended the law’s rule over
believers (Rom. 10:4). This emphatic statement from the Holy Spirit
ends any validity to arguments that the OT law is regulative for our
conduct in any way.
But this very truth is stated in the very text of Rom. 7:1-4. Verse.
4 is transparently clear: “You were made to die to the law through the
body of Christ.” Then Paul says, “Now we have been released from the
law, having died to that by which we were bound,” (vs. 6). Likewise, “if
the husband dies she is released form the law of the husband” (vs.
2) and “if her husband dies she is free from the law,” (vs. 3). The entire
section is written specifically to prove that our spiritual death with
Christ (Rom. 6:1ff) has ended our relationship to law, and it never
again can “bind” us to its rules, restrictions and penalties.
So Paul’s use of this OT law of “adultery” is an appeal to their
understanding of how that code operated for as long as they were
under it, in order to demonstrate that they had been set entirely free
from law by the death of Christ. Their freedom from the rule of law
was just as total as a widow’s freedom from a dead husband.
Regardless of what harsh laws he may have laid down, how severe
his treatment of her, or how controlling he might be, once he is
dead the widow owes no more allegiance to him or his laws. We
feel pity for a widow who cannot escape the emotional scars left by
a harsh, demanding husband. Yet spiritually, we find millions of
believers doing the same thing relative to the law, their dead
spiritual husband. We must walk away from all vestiges of that
former relationship and never look back. The law is dead. We are
set free. Our new Husband, Jesus, demands only that we “love God
with our whole heart, and love our neighbor as we love ourselves,” (Matt.
22:36-38). His “new commandment” is that we love each other just as
He has loved us, (Jn. 13:34; 15L12, 17; 1 Jn. 2:7f 3:11, 23; 2 Jn. 5). If
we will love God and neighbor, we fulfill all commandments God
ever gave, (Rom. 13:8, 10). Thus Christ’s one new commandment
has effectively replaced all God’s former individual
commandments. This includes all God’s commandments about sex.
We are not under that old husband’s rule anymore. We are under
the rule of our New Husband, Jesus. His law about sex and
everything else is singular: “In sexual matters do nothing that will
harm others. This will fulfill all God’s previous laws about sex.”
118
To return to Rom. 7 then, the OT “code of marriage” is a part of
that which we “are made free from,” (vs. 4). Therefore the “wife as
possession” regulative principle no longer exists. All NT believers
are “made free from” that law. Since the death and resurrection of
Jesus, marriage no longer makes a wife the property of her
husband. Therefore all the regulations that served to enforce that
concept, have no validity. The heart of that concept having been
killed, the extremities must also die.
It should go without saying, but we will say it anyway: that
code never eliminated God’s prima facie acceptance of polygamy and
concubinage. The God who gave that marriage code, still accepted
multiple sexual relationships. Paul does not attempt to explore the
ramifications of the OT marriage code. His sole interest is to
establish the basic OT principle of “bondage” of a woman to man in
marriage for the purpose of illustrating how NT believers are freed
from all such bondage, to be joined to Christ in a life of liberty.
Paul did not mention the fact that even under that code, one
could divorce his wife and marry another, but a wife could not thus
divorce her husband to marry another. Divorce and remarriage, in
OT, was a one sided privilege: for the man only. In making divorce
a privilege for the woman also, Jesus opened to her the same
advantages the man always had.
Paul himself, in 1 Cor. 7:15, releases a woman from “bondage”
to a husband who merely leaves her. He is still living, yet she is
“free.” Thus re-marriage is an option for her with no fear of
“adultery.” Paul’s point here demonstrates that his use of Rom. 7:4
is from the OT perspective for the sole purpose of persuading Jews
of the abrogation of the law. It is not, in any sense, an attempt to
enforce as an eternal, universal law what God mandated only in the
temporary setting of Jewish patriarchy.
We have no justification for trying to apply the OT law of
marriage to NT believers in such a way that we bind NT believers
to something even that OT law did not bind them to. Paul’s use of
this code cannot possibly be employed in a way that goes beyond
the bounds of its original OT application. Nor can his use of this
code contradict his own revelation that saints are set free from that
very code. Since OT law allowed multiple sexual relationships then
it is “unlawful” to use that law in an attempt to outlaw multiple
sexual relationships today. Paul’s use is in strict harmony with OT
application: he deals solely with the “woman” side of the issue to
119
make his point about being free from the law. Any use of OT
marriage code by NT believers must necessarily incorporate Jesus’
alteration of its basic regulation of women.
The “Open Marriage”
It is unfortunate that we no not have a good word to describe
the sexual activity of married couples who mutually agree to
enlarge their “circle of love” to include others in their sexual
activity. By now we can see that the word “adultery” is utterly
inappropriate to describe this activity. “Infidelity” is also
inappropriate, inasmuch as neither partner is being “unfaithful” to
the other. Both have agreed to explore sexuality with others than
their marital partners. As such, extra-marital sex becomes in fact a
manifestation of their true “fidelity” to each other; a demonstration
of their strong trust in each other and their mutual delight in the
spiritual, emotional and sexual growth and fulfillment of their
partners. Infidelity, like adultery, is much more involved than mere
sexual behavior. It is an issue of constriction of love; false security,
dishonesty; mistreatment, deception and general lack of respect for
the other’s person-hood. It grows out of suffocating possessiveness
which is life-destroying. Infidelity is manifested in many ways
other than in a sexual sense. It is a lack of trust and honesty. It is
based on fear of the other, and uncertainty about oneself. It shows a
disregard for truth, integrity and trustworthiness.
The open-ended marriage respects the integrity of the other
mate and values sexual liberty. Infidelity is as much an issue with
those who pursue open marriage as is adultery. Open marriage
advocates are careful to protect their primary relationship with
each other. They are committed to their vows of permanency and
mutual nurturing. Each works at encouraging the growth and
fulfillment of the other. Both partners are sensitive to the need for
truth and honesty in their sexual practices and in all other aspects
of their relationship. And at the same time they refuse to constrict
themselves and their partners to exclusive intimacy.
It is ironic and hypocritical for courts to grant divorce on the
grounds of “adultery” while refusing to accept and honor the
testimony of couples who wish divorce on the grounds of mutual
incompatibility, unhappiness, or on irreconcilable infidelity in the
broader non-sexual sense. Such incongruity often consigns people
120
to enduring hellish conditions in an exploded relationship, on the
theory that only “adultery” (restricted meaning: sex with another
than one’s mate) makes divorce acceptable. This ignores the reality
that many more lives are destroyed by the non-sexual lying,
deceiving, conniving, hurtful behavior of mates, than is the case
with “sexual infidelity.”
Open marriages are monogamous: the couple maintains a
primary one-to-one relationship based on mutual commitment and
intended to last a lifetime. But it does not exclude the possibility of
other intimate and sexual friendships. It may or may not involve
formal “marriage” (i.e. license, minister, public ceremony). We
understand that there are risks and challenges involved in open
ended marriages. But so are there risks in traditionally
monogamous marriages. But there are a significant number of men
and women who are ready and eager to face those challenges and
take those risks because they know that a more joyful and loving
marital lifestyle is possible and attainable. Open-ended marriage
promotes risk-taking in trust. It encourages the warmth and joy of
loving without anxiety. It fosters the extension of affection beyond
only one person in the universe. It proclaims the excitement and
pleasure of knowing a variety of persons in a sensual way. It
experiences the enrichment that a variety of personalities can
contribute to each other. Open marriage makes it possible to be
fully alive in every encounter with other people.
Christians desperately need an ethic of sex for enjoyment,
pleasure and interpersonal enrichment, all of which aligns with the
“goodness” of sex as God created it and as it is seen practiced
throughout the Bible. We need to discard the non-biblical notion
that sex is utterly forbidden except to married people and only for
purposes of reproduction. The subject of sexuality is so frightening
and threatening that few parents, educators or church leaders are
willing to do the hard work of trying to understand what the Bible
actually says about it and then allowing sex to have an unhindered
place in the human experience. If we could arrive at a sex ethic for
pleasure along the lines suggested by the Song of Solomon for
instance, it might include at least the following:
1. Consistently positive attitudes toward sexual pleasure.
2. Eradication of the double standard as harmful to both male
and female sexuality.
121
3. Learning methods of non-coital mutual orgasm as a birth
control option and as forms of enjoyable and healthy sex.
4. Openly joyful celebration of the human body and all its
sexual possibilities, with none of the hiddeness, shame and guilt
that currently shrouds human sexuality.
5. Education that values and encourages personal responsibility
and decision making, with integrity, sensitivity and love for the
other person.
6. Honest, non-judgmental information about options for
relational styles and modes of sexual behavior.
7. Enjoyment of what “turns one on” sexually without judging
those whose personal choices do not coincide with ours.
Traditional monogamy is in a crisis. It has been cheapened by
the double standard, is mocked by the high divorce rate and is
seriously threatened by the incredible weight of the functions it is
forced to serve. Parents and children teeter on the beguilingly
frosted tiers of unrealistic expectations, and many of them crumble
under the weight of failed expectations. We expect too much of
ourselves, of each other, of the community and of the fragile
complexity of marital and family obligations. To attempt to be all
things to each other at all times and under all circumstances is to
beg for defeat. We can begin the reparative work by teaching our
children the truth about the pain, frustration, agonies and puzzles
of married life. We must not shield them from the truth that they
will love and live in the midst of crises and tragedies that will make
their loving and living difficult. We can attempt to pull the fangs of
jealousy by truthfully telling them that their self-esteem and
confidence in self and others is in no wise damaged or threatened
by the naturally human desire to reach out intimately to other
people. We can help them immensely by teaching them that they
can be sexually faithfully to each other while at the same time
giving each other the freedom to explore openness and sexual
intimacy with others. In short, our young people have the right to
know that there is an option for their desire for a stable, long-term
relationship. Traditional monogamy is acceptable for all who desire
it. But the option is open for all who wish to explore the openended
marriage.
122
Open marriages preserve the values and commitments of
traditional monogamy while overcoming its main limitation –
sexual exclusivity. There are many who do not automatically
equate sexual exclusivity with marital fidelity. Repudiating the
double standard, they enjoy intimacy, sensuality and often sex with
other friends. With no shame and with full trust in each other, the
partners in an open marriage enrich each other through their
mutual gift of sexual liberty, through encouragement to each other
to learn and grow sexually and through delight in each other’s joy
in loving other people. Their loving of others does not diminish
love for each other. Rather, it opens new vistas of love that only
enrich their mutual love and commitment. Open marriage offers
the possibility of a vibrant, committed monogamy that also
embraces the being of other persons, sharing with them the grace of
human caring and touch.
Finally, those who decide to pursue open-ended marriage must
be prepared for the social consequence. Most of those who learn of
your practice will not be able to exercise sympathy with your
lifestyle. Our cultural/religious training virtually prohibits most
people from seeing the morality of sex with someone other than
one’s spouse. “Infidelity,” “adultery,” “promiscuity,” “sick,”
“immoral,” “degenerate” and other such words will be the staples
of choice for accusers, judges and finger pointers. Traditional
morality focuses so much on the act that it can make no room for
relationships that are not sexually exclusive. Traditional morality
focuses on the number of sexual partners without reference to the
more important matter of the quality of relationship. Those who
practice open marriage must be prepared to be judged as immoral,
blasphemous and degenerates. But perhaps it will help to know
that this places you in the same category as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob,
David and a host of other mighty saints. In our society they would
be judged as severely, with the same epithets. But God accepted
them and their non-sexually-exclusive practices. If it is good
enough to pass God’s inspection why worry overmuch about
passing human inspection? We trust that we have demonstrated
that what God defines as “adultery” does not fit at all the practice
of including others into the circle of our commitment to each other
as a couple-married-for-life. We have demonstrated that the most
godly of Biblical saints did not practice sexual exclusivity within their
marriages. This is simply an indisputable matter of the Biblical
123
record. We can safely follow their example without fear of
committing “adultery.” And our lives can be wonderfully
enhanced by mutually granted sexual liberty without the
judgmental baggage heaped upon it by an ignorant and prejudicial
church and society.
124
CHAPTER SIX
LUST OF THE EYES
No study of sex and the Bible can be complete unless the issue
of “lust of the eyes” is addressed. This phrase, from 1 Jn. 2:16,
denotes a sinful, worldly longing for something one sees, but has
no right to possess. It is used regularly by church leaders and
laymen alike in reference to any “sexual gaze” that is anything
other than married persons looking at their mate. If a single guy
looks with sexual desire at a woman he intends to marry, this is
“lust of the eyes” and is unhesitatingly condemned in the church as
sin. If a married man looks at a beautiful woman other than his
wife, with anything that approaches appreciation for her sexual
beauty, it is “lust of the eyes” and sinful. The church is virtually
unanimous in condemning all non-marital sexual “looking” as
sinful. Naturally this makes all nude photos, statues, painting,
sketches, etc. sinful regardless of the context in which they appear,
or the attitude that prevails in the mind of the “looker.”
“Pornography” is the cousin of “lust of the eyes” for it is this ”lust”
that forms the sole basis for the existence of pornography. At least
that is what we are taught. But “it ain’t necessarily so.” It depends
on what the Bible actually means by the phrase “lust of the eyes,”
and also requires a correct perception of what exactly constitutes
“pornography.”
Once again, our concern is not to search out modern concepts of
this issue. We seek to know what the Bible is condemning when it
condemns “lust of the eyes” as a “work of the flesh” and a
characteristic of the “world.” Our first search path, again, is the
definition of the actual words used in the Bible. For this study, we
will consider “lust” as well as several related words. This will be
interesting. Follow us.
DEFINITION OF WORDS:
Lascivious;
“licentiousness, filthy, lasciviousness, wantonness.” “Unashamed
indulgence, unrestrained depravity, sinning in contempt of public
morals, arrogantly defiant of moral restraints.” (Strong’s #766)
“Gk. Aselgeia: excess, immoderation in anything; licentiousness,
wantonness.” (A Critical Lexicon to the English and Greek New
Testament, E. W. Bullinger, p.441)
125
Unclean;
Gk. Akatharsos: ” impurity, physical or moral, filthiness, foul.”
(Strong’s #’s167, 168, 169).
Lust, Evil desire;
Heb. Hamad:
”covet, desire, long, lust.” (Strong’s #183)
“delight in, delectable thing, desire, lust.” (Strong’s #2530)
”appetite, pleasure.” (Strong’s #5315)
“twisted, firm, obstinate, imagination, lust.” (Strong’s #8307)
“a longing, delight, satisfaction, desire exceedingly, greedily, lust.”
(Strong’s #8378)
Gk. Epithumia: “to set the heart upon, long for, covet, desire, would
fain, lust, crave.” (Strong’s #1937, 1938, 1939)
“to dote upon, intensely crave possession, earnestly desire, greatly
long after.” (Strong’s #1971)
“sensual delight, desire, lust, pleasure.” (Strong’s #2237)
“excitement of the mind; longing after, lust.” (Strong’s #3715)
“passion, inordinate affection, lust.” (Strong’s #3806)
“The word “lust” has become more narrow in meaning since the
time of KJV; the RSV generally reserves the terms for passionate
evil desires, usually sexual. As in English, the Greek term is of wide
meaning, with particular meaning dependent on the context. It can
represent any strong desire, including those that are sinful and
those that are not (Lk. 22:15; Phil. 1:23; 1Thess. 2:17) and can be as
broad as ‘materialism’ (Mk. 4:19; Rev. 18:14) or as specific as sexual
passion or obsession (Mt. 5:28; Rom. 1:24; 1 Thess. 4:5).”
Eerdman’s Bible Dictionary, pg. 668
“Both the Heb. and Gk. indicate strong desire; the bad sense of
evil desire is present only in certain contexts.”
ISBE, vol. 1, pg. 797, 798
“1… epithumia, what is directed toward anything, desire which
attaches itself to or upon its object. It is used exclusively of sinful
desire, which corresponds to man’s depraved nature. The inward
passion of concupicence. 2. orexis, a reaching after, the appetite and
tendency toward the external object. No. 1 is only the mental
desire; No. 2 has conjoined with it the notion of the thing desired.
No. 1 may therefore be used absolutely, as in Rom. 7:7 and 8:9, but
126
No. 2 never. Hedone, pleasure, gratification, enjoyment, pathos,
suffering, passion (of affection or love). Epithumeo, to fix the desire
upon, to have the affections directed towards anything (of unlawful
desires). Epipotheo, to desire upon, i.e. over and above, to desire
earnestly, long for. (Bullinger, p. 472)
“Epithumia denotes strong desire of any kind, the various kinds
being specified by some adjective. It is used of a good desire in Lk.
22:15; Phil. 1:23; 1 Thess. 2:17 only. Everywhere else it has a bad
sense. In Rom. 6:12 the injunction against letting sin reign in our
mortal body to obey the lusts thereof, refers to those evil desires
which are ready to express themselves in bodily activity. They are
equally the lusts of the flesh…a phrase which describes the
emotions of the soul, the natural tendency towards things evil.
Such lusts are necessarily base and immoral, they may be refined in
character, but are evil if inconsistent with the will of God.”
(Expository Dictionary of New testament Words, W.E. Vine, part 3, pg.
25)
So we know that “lust” is usually very bad, and that “lustful
looking” is sinful looking. But unless we know more than these two
facts, we know nothing useful about what God wants us to avoid in
this regard. Let’s look at the actual texts that deal with this subject.
Scripture References:
Job makes a covenant with his eyes: “why should I gaze upon a
young woman?” (Job. 31:1). Obviously this is looking with sexual
desire.
“If you see a beautiful woman and desire her…” Deut. 21:11. Quite
obviously, this is sexual desire sparked by the woman’s physical
beauty and it is approved by God and indeed provided for in His
law. So how does this shed light on “if a man look upon a woman to
lust after her…” (Mt. 5:27, 28). How is this different from “lust of the
eyes?” Why is one forbidden, and the other accepted? In view of the
prima facie acceptance of polygamy in the OT, what about a married
man who looks upon a beautiful unmarried woman, is sexually
attracted to her, and desires her for a second wife? Since this
occurred thousands of times in the OT, with God’s approval, it is
obvious that this does not constitute “lust of the eyes” or “committing
127
adultery in one’s heart.” It should already be apparent that “lust of the
eyes” is something more than looking with sexual appreciation.
“Do not commit adultery. But I say whoever looks upon a woman to
lust after her has committed adultery against her already in his heart,”
(Mt. 5:27ff). Is this the definition of “lust of the eyes?” Does one
commit this sin when one merely looks at a woman with sexual
desire? We think not.
The key to this verse is to know the correct meaning of adultery.
Throughout the OT the word “adultery” means taking a married
woman from her husband. (We dealt at length with this subject in a
previous chapter). This verse does not condemn a man for looking
at a single woman in appreciation for her physical beauty and
sexual desirability and desiring to enjoy sex with her. If such is
wrong it will have to be proven by other verses, for this one has to
do with adultery. If a single man cannot look “sexually” at a single
woman without committing adultery then what about the
normal(?) role of sexual attraction and desire in the
courting/mating process? And what of the sexual desire, sparked
by the sight of a beautiful woman, that led to the practice of
polygamy and concubinage by godly men such as David, Abraham
and many others?
And what does this indicate about simply looking, even at a
married woman, without the desire to take her from her husband?
If there is no desire or intention or effort to possess her, it is not
adultery to look at a married woman and be aware that she is
beautiful & sexually desirable. “To lust after” a married woman, is
to “desire to take her for oneself,” in the sense of a desire to break up
a marriage so one can have another man’s wife as his own. Enjoying
sex with a married woman does not, of itself, constitute adultery.
Adultery is not a sex act. Sex may or may not be a part of adultery.
Adultery is a matter of breaking the marriage bond; it is rebellion of
either a wife or husband against the vows they made to each other.
Israel committed “adultery” against God, yet no human imagines
that Israel ever had sex with God. Israel’s adultery was in leaving
God’s provision, protection and authority, for another “husband’s”
(nation’s) provision, protection and authority. Sex had nothing to
do with it. In exactly the same way for humans, adultery is the
actual, or the desired breaking of the marriage bond, for the purpose
of being joined to another mate.
128
Prevailing opinion in the church is that for a man to look at a
woman and have any sort of sexual response, is sinful, unless he is
married to her. One well known pastor said to an audience of
several hundred people, “It is wrong for a man even to lust after his
own wife!” (I know. I was there. I heard it with my own ears!) Who
can truly believe such foolishness? But the prevalence of such
absurdities raises questions about human nature, and about the
proper understanding of the actual words Jesus used in this
statement.
First, human nature is such that every normal male is sexually
attracted to a pretty woman. He doesn’t have to “work up” an
attraction, it is simply there. It is automatic for a man to delight in
the sight of a beautiful woman and to have a strong sense of her
sexuality. It is all part of one package. It is part of the attraction of the
sexes to each other. For a woman to look at a man and find him
sexually attractive is as normal as for a man to look the same way
at a woman. It is the way God made people. Surely no one thinks
that a single man is attracted to and motivated to marry a woman
without any thoughts of sexuality! Such thoughts and desires are a
strong part of courtship for both sexes. When a single man looks at
a beautiful woman and has sexual thoughts about her and asks her
for a date, he has not sinned. Nor has a woman sinned who
delights in the sight of a handsome and sexually appealing man.
Whether he is married or unmarried is irrelevant.
Next, we must be honest with the words Jesus used and avoid
assigning them meanings that are not valid according to their true
definition. As shown above, the word “lust” cannot be properly
defined as “having sexual attraction to.” The word means “desire
to possess as one’s own,” in a covetous way. It is desire to steal what
belongs to another. Simple sexual desire of a man for a woman is
not invalid and cannot be made to fit under the definition of “lust.”
To “lust after” something or someone is to have a strong desire to
take what belongs to another. Just as hate is the motivation behind
murder, so “lust” or “covetousness” is the motivation behind theft.
So Moses forbade men to “covet your neighbor’s wife, or your
neighbor’s house….” (Ex. 20:17). Lust is not inherently sexual: it is a
desire to possess the property of another person. If that “covetous”
quality – the desire to steal – is not there, then it is not “lust.” As we
quoted above from Eerdman’s Bible Dictionary, “It can represent any
strong desire, including those that are sinful and those that are
129
not.” Apart from the desire to steal, it is simply a strong desire, and
that is not sinful.
The most important element in Jesus’ statement is His emphasis
on “adultery.” A man cannot commit adultery except with a
married woman (cf. next chapter). Jesus says this “looking” equals
“adultery in his heart,” so Jesus is talking only about a man who
looks at a married woman with an intention and desire to take her way
from her husband. If that intention is not there, then adultery is not
involved, and he is not condemned, even if he looks with sexual
desire. So, a man might look at a married woman with sexual
desire, yet not commit “adultery,” because he has no desire to take
her away from her husband.
This helps us deal with such issues as a person going to a
burlesque show, the sole purpose of which is the display of a
woman’s body to men, or a man’s body to women. Is the act of
looking at the naked body of the opposite sex sinful? If so, by
definition of what specific words? Which specific Scripture texts
teach that idea? Nothing in Scripture indicates that such is sinful.
The fact that such looking is overtly sexual, and purposely excites
those looking does not, in itself, make it sinful. In strictly Biblical
terms, for men to watch a woman strip is sinful only if the woman is
married, and then only if the man desires to take her from her
husband and marry her. This makes it “adultery.” It is the
“adultery” that is sinful: i.e. the desire to take another man’s wife.
Looking with sexual pleasure is not sinful. If a woman desires to
display her body for free or for payment, there is nothing in the
definition of words or Biblical examples, or anything else that
pertains to God’s law, that condemns such. As we have shown in
the Song of Solomon, the Shulammite girl performed just such a
nude dance for an audience of many people with the proud
approval of her lover, and all with God’s approval. If God’s word is
the only thing that can make a thing sinful then no one can make a
burlesque show sinful. We have a Biblical example of such, with
Divine approval of the dancer, her lover, and the delighted
audience who beg her for an encore! (Song of Solomon 6:13) It is
neither Biblical nor morally ethical to brand as sinful a person who
willingly sheds their clothes and allows other people to look at
their bodies. Nor is it sinful for those who look. Whatever
objections are made to this practice, they will have to be made on
some grounds other than Biblical condemnation.
130
One unfortunate aspect of this discussion is that because of
current, misguided values, invalid reasoning and non-Biblical
standards, all forms of sexual “entertainment” have, in this
country, been forced to the dark, seamy side of town and have been
placed in a category of “unclean” and “undesirable.” The fall-out
from this is that those who provide such services are forced to set
up in parts of town with higher crime rates, drug problems and
alcohol problems. It is then argued that burlesque shows have a
bad effect on surrounding areas. But the fact is that burlesque
shows are, by default, forced into bad areas by zoning laws, then
they are blamed for the area being bad! It is all politics, and bad
politics at that! In most other countries burlesque theaters and other
forms of sexual entertainment are regulated as any other business
and no discrimination is forced against them. Thus there is no
apparent “evil effect” of such businesses on the surrounding area.
In our day there are services which, for a set fee, provide a male
or female dancer who will come to one’s home or motel or
whatever and do a private show for one or more people. A typical
example of this is the “bachelor’s party.” Regardless of how we
react initially to this idea, the fact is that one cannot possibly brand
such a practice as sinful from a Biblical perspective. One may loathe
and detest such a practice if one desires. But one may not brand
such as “sin” on the basis of “lust of the eyes” because no such
meaning inheres in those words as they are used in the Bible.
This also has direct application to the issue of “pornography.” Is
it sinful for a man or woman to look at photographs of the bodies
of naked men and women? The reason given for such being sinful,
is that it is to “look with lust after” those people. Yet again, Jesus is
talking strictly about looking with the intention to commit
“adultery.” This involves the intention to deprive a man of his wife
and make her one’s own. If this is not part of the “looking,” then it
is not “adultery” and there is nothing in Scripture that forbids it.
Labeling any and all sexually oriented writings, photos or films as
“pornography” does not thereby make such sinful, unclean, etc.
Such labels would make the Song of Solomon a pornographic book.
Is God the Author of pornography?
We may take the thought further, to consider looking at
photographs or films of people having sex, or what is called “hard
core pornography.” Is it sinful for a person to watch other people
131
engaged in sexual activity? Might one watch a couple engaged in
sex play without sinning? We are not asking if the reader finds
such sights personally acceptable. We ask only if the Bible says
anything that makes it sinful for a person to observe other people
engaged in sexual activity. We do not believe such can be classified
as sin. Nor can it be said that it is sinful for a couple to enjoy sex
together while others observe. In a major U.S. city, a TV news team
reported on some local clubs whose practice was to provide an
“open house” for those who desire to come in to enjoy sex,
knowing that others would probably watch them from time to
time. The owner of one club said there were no doors to the various
rooms, requiring all participants to enjoy their sexual activities only
in semi-privacy. A stage was available where men or women might
dance nude for the appreciation of those who desired to watch. The
reaction of the news reporters was predictable: i.e. such clubs were,
if not vile, at least for “kooks, perverts and weirdoes.” Again, our
sole question is: “What does the Bible say?” Society’s standards
have no bearing on this question, because social standards have no
moral authority.
But a question arises about the nature of human sexuality and
its similarity to animal sexuality, and human response to both. No
one thinks it strange that people will watch animals mate. Public
TV often documents the mating habits of animals and it is not an
uncommon thing to see male animal genitalia in full erection. A
recent PBS documentary on apes did not blur out or apologize for
showing apes engaging in copulation. Male and female genitalia
were in full view, mother apes fed their babies with fully exposed
breasts, etc. Why is it not morally questionable to watch such
shows? Likewise, animals simply copulate wherever they have
opportunity and motivation. Animals do not seek privacy for sex.
Why do we conclude this is “normal” for animals but “abnormal”
for humans? Humans may, and do watch animals copulate with
not even a hint of wrongdoing. Yet we are horrified to think of
watching other humans do the same! Suppose we have two video
tapes sitting on the shelf. Tape one depicts a male and female ape
engaging in sexual intercourse and tape two depicts a human male
and female doing exactly the same thing. Many people would view
tape one and say something like, “Ah, interesting! Isn’t God’s
creation marvelous!” But most of those same people would view
132
tape two and react in horror at the disgusting, vulgar display of
lust, etc. Why? Why do we act this way?
Why do we conclude that it is sinful, or reprehensible, or
whatever, for humans to watch humans copulate? The act is exactly
the same; the organs are exactly the same; the orgasms are exactly
the same. Why is one wrong and the other right? People say, “Well,
with humans it is different!” OK, but exactly what is it about the
human sex act that puts it in a separate category from all else?
There is nothing about the act itself, because it is exactly the same as
animal sex. So is it the mere fact that we are humans? If so, where
does God declare, or even hint, that solely because we are humans we
must regard our sexual activity as totally different from animal sex?
Granted, God set some sexual boundaries for humans. But our
whole argument in these studies is that God set the boundaries He saw
necessary and left out all boundaries He did not feel necessary. Are we
smarter than God? Do we understand human sexuality better than
God? Should God ask us what we think is acceptable for humans to
do and to see? If God did not specify a sexual activity as sinful,
then it is not sinful regardless of what we think of it. No person is
required to do sexual things they find repugnant. But no person is
allowed to condemn others for activities that God has not
forbidden. In the realm of what God has not forbidden there is full
freedom for sexual enjoyment by those who desire it. In a culture
like ours where the masses have been brainwashed by a pharisaical
church, with the idea that sexual activity is inherently dirty, it has
become nearly impossible for most people to think soberly and
calmly about sex. Few of us have a healthy attitude toward this
most fundamental of all human, biological functions. It is tragic
that it is so. So much illegitimate shame, guilt, self-loathing, broken
marriages and such, would not exist if people could only be
convinced that the naked human body and its glorious sexual
function are “very good,” just as God said in the beginning. When
God created us naked and unashamed, establishing this condition
as His preference, He also made it innocent for men and women to
look at each other’s naked bodies with appreciation and enjoyment.
And God gave us the gift of sex for enjoyment, within very
specifically legislated parameters, and then set us free to enjoy this
gift in a wide range of ways. All restrictions apart from the few
God made against doing it, watching others do it, or being watched
while doing it, are human restrictions and no human is spiritually
133
or morally bound by those restrictions. We are no more bound by
such restrictions than animals are. The most we need to be
concerned about is regulating our personal activities in such a way
that others are not harmed spiritually or emotionally by the
freedom that we enjoy. Then if we desire to do it, we may go ahead
and do it without guilt or shame.
The bottom line is this: “Lust of the eyes” is looking with a desire
to steal the thing being looked at. Looking with appreciation,
fascination, sexual excitement and sexual desire is not contained in
this prohibition at all. This means:
• God has nowhere condemned the practice of men and women
looking at other men and women, whether married or
unmarried, with sexual appreciation.
• God has nowhere condemned the practice of men and women
looking at photographs of other men and women, and being
sexually excited by what they see.
• God has nowhere condemned the practice of men and women
looking at movies of other people engaged in sexual activity.
• God has nowhere condemned the practice of men and women
watching other men and women enjoying sex.
• God has nowhere condemned the practice of men and women
watching a live performance by a nude dancer, whether or not
they are sexually excited by it.
• God has nowhere condemned the practice of men and women
performing a nude dance, or otherwise displaying their body for
the admiration of the opposite sex.
• God must necessarily feel the same about these matters now as
He did when He inspired the Song of Solomon, which describes
the Shulammite’s nude dance and her sexual activities with her
lover. If God approved of it then in writing, He cannot possibly
disapprove of it in actual experience.
It does not make any difference how the world or the church
defines “pornography,” or otherwise categorizes these practices.
The only thing that truly makes a difference is what God actually
said or did not say. And if God recommends something as good, we
must agree with God that it is good in spite of what we, the church,
and the world have previously thought. We are bound to observe
what God said, and the laws He made. We are free to experiment
134
with and enjoy sex outside those boundaries, restricted only by a
“self policing” effort to avoid harming other people by our liberty.
WHAT EXACTLY IS “PORNOGRAPHY?”
The chapter detailing the erotic nature of the Song of Solomon
should show that erotic literature and art, in themselves, do not
violate Biblical moral standards. Some forms of erotic literature and
art may be illegitimate, but again, illegitimate, i.e. immoral forms of
erotic media must be defined by God’s word. So we are brought
again to the basic question, “What, if anything, does the Bible say
about what is commonly called pornography?”
The literal definition of “pornography,” comes from the
combined meaning of the two components, pornea which means
“forbidden sexual behavior,” and grapho which means “to write.”
So “pornography” is literally, “writings about forbidden sexual
behavior.” By extension it includes photographs and movies about
forbidden sexual behavior. Let us be sure we understand: it is not
“writing about sex” that is illicit; it is writing about “forbidden
sex,” that is wrong. Writing about sex or photographically
depicting sex is not wrong. It is only when one depicts sex that God
forbids that it becomes wrong, and then only if there is an impure
motive in writing; e.g. writing about incest in such a way as to
stimulate others to engage in incest. But many writings about incest
have nothing to do with sexual stimulation, and the writings
themselves are educational, and should be read by those who
desire to understand the nature of the act, its Biblical references,
etc. True “pornography” that merits censure, is writing about or
otherwise depicting sinful sexual activity. If the depiction is of
Biblically acceptable sexual activity, including photographs and
films of those activities, then it is not “pornographic” because
Biblically acceptable sexual activities are not forbidden. A writing is not
pornographic just because it is sexually explicit or stimulates sexual
desire. Desire for sexual activity is not forbidden. So depictions of
sex that arouse normal desires are not forbidden. It is so
unfortunate that our society uses the word “pornography” as a
blanket condemnation of all media depictions of human nudity and
sex. It is simply wrong to use the word that way. And that use of
the word makes the Song of Solomon a pornographic writing.
135
The word for pornography does not exist in either OT or NT.
However history is full of examples of sexual writings and
drawings that cover the gamut of every conceivable sexual
behavior. The question here is this: Is all writing about,
photographing or filming of sexual activity to be considered
pornographic, and does the Bible condemn it? In other words, is it
alright to have sex, but not alright to write about it or photograph it, or
watch it? Or is it alright to write about and photograph sexual
activity as long as it is kept within Biblically legitimate boundaries?
We believe the latter is the correct position to take on this issue. The
Song of Solomon is our proof. In the Song of Solomon we have one
of history’s best classical pieces of sexual literature. It presents
erotic sex, desire and nudity in a straightforward, unashamed, even
joyful setting. If the actual Hebrew words of that poem were
translated into their modern language equivalent, this poem would
surely stimulate sexual desire in some who read it. And its
descriptions of male and female genitalia, plus the unabashed
invitations by both boy and girl, to uninhibited love-making,
would quickly condemn it to the banned category. But the Song of
Solomon shows us what is good erotic media. It depicts human sex
in its wonder and passion, but within Biblically legitimate boundaries.
There is no depiction in this poem of any forbidden activity.
(Except for the fact that the boy and girl are not married! But that
subject will have to wait for another chapter.) We will add here
only that the kind of sex the Song of Solomon writes about may also
be photographed with the same propriety. If that poem had been
written today, who could doubt that it would be on the internet, in
full video splendor!
Since the word “pornography” describes depiction of illicit
sexual activity, the place to begin with a definition of pornography
is to ask: “What is forbidden sexual behavior?” Again we remind the
reader that only the Bible correctly answers that question. There is
but one reliable moral standard in the universe. It is the Bible. If the
Bible says a sex act is forbidden then it is so. But if the Bible does
not so define it then it is not forbidden regardless of what anyone
ever says or does. No human can define sexual morality. Writing
about sex or photographing people in sexual situations or making
movies that are explicitly sexual, does not automatically make
those things wrong. Again, we are trying to find what the Bible
says about all sexual matters. We are not concerned with
136
“community standards,” because the “community” rejects the Bible
as its moral guide, and therefore has no authoritative basis for its
definition of “pornography,” or for defining what is an acceptable
“community standard.” Also, the issue has nothing to do with
“redeeming social value.” If God defines a sex act as forbidden then
the act itself has no redeeming social value and neither does
depicting it in writing, photos or movies. On the other hand any
depiction of Biblically legitimate sex is acceptable whether
community standards agree or not.
Anything that glorifies, depicts in a favorable light, or sets up as
acceptable, practices that God has forbidden, is sinful. The principle
of Rom. 1:32 applies here: “…those who practice such things are worthy
of death, (yet) they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to
those who practice them.” Not only must we avoid what God has
forbidden, but we must also refuse to encourage or agree with
those who practice such sins. Writings, photographs and films that
depict incest, rape, child abuse, or bestiality, in a favorable light
must be avoided. The acts themselves are sin, and so is the
favorable depiction of them.
But explicit, graphic, verbal and pictorial representations of
nude men and women or of actual sexual acts are not forbidden in
either OT or NT. Personal and public opinion and church dogma
may hold such to be unethical and cry out for its annihilation, but
the fact remains that God did not see the practice as significant
enough to even comment on. Archeology proves that every
civilization had its forms of sexually explicit writings and
drawings. Such writings and drawings exist in the ruins of ancient
Egypt from which Israel was delivered as well as in every nation
that occupied Canaan surrounding Israel. While God took such
great pains to specify every other form of sexual vice which he
demanded that Israel avoid, why did He never mention even by
inference, such a prevalent practice? And how could He condemn
such writings, seeing that He also wrote such a book?
The existence of the Song of Solomon as canonic Scripture has
troubled religious people for centuries. This short book is filled
with unabashed, explicit descriptions of naked bodies including
descriptions of both male and female sex organs, an account of a
naked public dance, along with depictions of sexual intercourse
and oral sex. This book is accepted as Divinely inspired by most of
the modern church, yet its whole nature would have to be classified
137
as “pornographic” if we use the prevailing definition of that word.
The fact that God inspired the author of this graphically sexual
book, automatically means that to write about sex, to describe sex
organs, to depict sexual intercourse, etc., in a form that appeals to a
mass audience, is not pornographic, is not ill-advised, is not dirty, is not
immoral, is not sinful. The Song of Solomon was written to be read,
appreciated and enjoyed. One who reads it and enjoys the sexual
references cannot be faulted in any way. If writing about it is
innocent, then other means of depicting sexual activity is also
innocent. To depict sexual activity in photographs or films, either
for the purpose of sexual education or the enjoyment of the viewer,
is as innocent as is both the writing and the reading of the Song of
Solomon.
By our Western religious ethical standards, any depiction of any
sex act is pornographic. We view anything that is sexually explicit
as impure. All sex talk that is done outside the relationship of
husband/wife, is suspect, and even then, we are expected to use
only euphemisms, rather than actually call a penis or a vulva by
name. We are so paranoid about sex, that we cannot even talk
frankly enough to our children to educate them about sex.
The pleasure attached to viewing explicit sexual pictures,
movies, or writings, could actually be used as a powerful ally in an
effort to teach children the beauties, pleasures and responsibilities
of sex. Yet if we use sexually explicit photographs to educate our
children about sexual intercourse, we cannot then tell them that
such photographs are sinful and must be avoided. We involve
ourselves in a hopeless contradiction. We used the once popular
book, Show Me, to teach our children about sex. The photographs in
this book explicitly depict male and female genitalia, picturing
grown men and boys with erect penises, and couples having
intercourse. Yet our meager information, and still malformed
opinions, held all other form of sexual depiction as “pornographic.”
Nothing is inherently dirty, vulgar or sinful about a photograph
of a nude woman or man. Nor is anything inherently unclean about
a photograph or film depicting masturbation, sexual intercourse,
oral sex, etc. If God has not condemned the act or the observation of
the act by others, no human can make it wrong. Consider again, the
fact that humans watch animals have sex regularly and find
nothing at all offensive about it, and can even talk about it to
others. Many people intentionally breed their pets, and watch
138
while the breeding occurs. What makes this so radically different
from watching humans have sex? “Well, it’s different with
humans” is the first reply. But what makes it different, and who says
it is different? God watches humans have sex all the time. Why
have we come to the conclusion that it is sinful to watch people do
what God created them to do, and what God watches them do all
the time? Is a penis a sinful, dirty object? Is a vagina vulgar? Is it
the mere act of looking at them that is vulgar? When penis enters
vagina is the act dirty? Is it dirty to look at the act? How does it
become dirty by taking a photo of the act? Does transferring a
beautiful act to a piece of film transform it into an ugly thing? It is
truly miraculous that a wholesome activity becomes utterly
unwholesome somewhere in the transfer of its image to either
paper or celluloid. Again, let the existence of the Song of Solomon
serve as a sobriety test for us in this matter.
For those in whom God’s grace has worked sufficiently to set
them free from human rules and expectations; for those who see
that sex is gloriously beautiful and is to be accepted with
thanksgiving and joy; for those who can experience sex in all its
wonder without shame or guilt, let such know that what is so
beautiful, pleasurable and enthralling for themselves is so for others
and that there is no legitimate reason to exclude from personal
pleasure and sexual enjoyment, the erotic writings, photographs
and films that depict sex as the incredibly pleasurable, fun, indeed
entertaining activity that it is. Writing about, photographing,
filming, or performing live for those who desire to see that which is
created wholesome and beautiful, may be enjoyed without shame
or guilt. No shame or guilt can legitimately attach to either
depicting, or enjoying the depiction of legitimate sexual activity. Only
that which depicts, for purposes of sexual enjoyment, what God
condemns, can be legitimately defined as “forbidden writings.”
Our default setting on this issue is something like this:
“Pornography is filthy and disgusting, therefore the Bible must
condemn it.” Yet the truth is that a thing is not filthy and
disgusting unless the Bible condemns it. We have gotten the cart
before the horse on this issue. We have first decided that what we
call “pornography” is sinful, and then we turn to the Bible to verify
our conclusions. Our problems here as in all matters of sexual
morality, would be solved if we first look at the Bible, refusing to
form any conclusions about any sexual matter until we have
139
understood what the Bible says about it. Only after understanding
what God says about sex in the Bible, will any person be able to
form a right opinion about it. And it is useless to answer with: “But
there are some things that are just obviously wrong.” This very
attitude is the basis for condemnation of masturbation, oral sex,
back yard nudity and social nudity, women wearing dresses that
expose their knees or their ankles (depending on which religious
camp one comes from), women allowing their arms to show, or
even exposing the neck to public gaze, etc. What is “obviously
wrong” to one group of people is just as obviously right to another
group of people. Our subjective opinions, regardless of how deeply
we feel them, can never be made the basis for moral standards. Our
obligation is simple. Let God be God! Let God do all the legislating
about all sexual matters. If God does not condemn a sexual practice
we must not. If God does not see a sex act as worthy of even
mentioning in His word then we should refuse to form dogmatic
opinions about it. And if our opinion is that we should not do
certain things about which God is silent, we must refuse to make
our opinions binding on other people. And we must also refuse to
judge other people’s preferences and behavior on the basis of our
strictly personal opinions.
Another question arises. If media depiction of human nudity or
sexual activity is basically innocent, what about sexual arousal in
the one viewing this media? Does sexual excitement when a man
views a photo of a naked woman, make it wrong? If a woman
views a photo of a nude man and is sexually excited about it, does
she sin? Some people think that a photograph, painting, etc. of a
nude may be inherently innocent but that one must avoid any
sexual excitement from viewing it. Such an idea makes it okay to
look, but wrong to react normally to the sight. This falsely assumes
that sexual excitement is wrong unless it is directed solely at one’s
marital partner. The Bible does not teach such an idea. Nature also
speaks against it. A Catholic priest we knew of, years ago, was
known to frequent theaters showing sexually explicit films. He
attached a strip of gauze to his eye -glasses, which he would hang
over his eyes during the “bad” parts, evidently thinking he could
watch but he could not enjoy it. He could watch the act, but he could
not become sexually excited by watching. So he “filtered out the
bad parts” with gauze over his eyes. Are we the only one who can
see the absurdity of this?
140
If a married couple rent a sexually explicit video, watch it
together and either or both of them experience sexual enjoyment
from the experience, have they sinned? We think not. The same
question must be asked of those who read the Song of Solomon. If a
man reads this book’s descriptions of the Shulamite maiden’s body,
with unabashedly sexual references to her legs, breasts and vulva,
and experiences any sexual stimulation, has he sinned? Is God
displeased? Who can believe it! Sexual stimulation is not abnormal,
and we are not under bondage to some “unwritten law” that
condemns all sexual stimulation except in the marriage bed.
If it is legitimate to graphically depict sexual activity – and the
Song of Solomon proves that it is legitimate – then it must, by
necessary inference, be legitimate to experience whatever emotions
or reactions are naturally associated with those depictions.
May a couple view a sexually explicit film for their private
viewing pleasure and as part of their enhancement of their own
lovemaking? We believe so. We also feel that neither husbands or
wives should feel threatened that their mate desires to attend a
show where either male or female shows their nude body. A
burlesque show, in Biblical terms, is neither moral nor immoral for
the reason that nakedness is neither moral nor immoral, nor is sexual
arousal either moral or immoral. For one to dance naked for
admiring crowds is no more immoral now, than it was for the
Shulammite girl to dance naked for admiring onlookers in the Song
of Solomon, or for David to dance naked before the men and
women thronging the road to the city. The dancer is not immoral
nor is the onlooker even if he pays to see the “show.” It becomes a
moral issue when the dancing is done to entice the viewer to
forbidden activity, such as adultery. If a couple invited a male or
female dancer to come to their home to dance for their mutual
pleasure there is nothing to prohibit it. And to become sexually
excited while watching is natural but not immoral. Sexual
excitement, regardless of the source or cause, is neither moral nor
immoral. It becomes immoral only when that excitement comes
from illegitimate sources, (depictions of bestiality, incest or other
forms of forbidden activity) or leads to illegitimate action (anything
God has prohibited).
All animals copulate in the open. There is no such thing in the
animal world as private sex. If Adam and Eve had not sinned,
141
humans would also have sex in the open. There would have been
no shame, dirt, etc. attached to sex that would cause us to hide it.
We would copulate in the open as readily as we eat in the open.
There would be no private toilets and we would relieve ourselves
without shame or fear of being seen. Since there would be no
shame attached to our body parts we would have no more
reluctance to allow others to see our sexual organs than we have to
allow them to see our arms, feet, legs, face, etc. All body parts
would “hang out in the open” and their functions would be as
natural as breathing. It would not be an unusual thing for humans
of any age to witness other humans copulate without hiding. Just
as humans observe animals copulating, humans would observe
humans copulating and there would be nothing unnatural,
embarrassing or guilt-inducing about it. We realize this may seem
outlandish yet reality is all around us. Naked animals do what
comes naturally. They do not eat in public view then feel compelled
to hide when copulating or eliminating their body wastes. This is
the way God intended it to be for all His creatures.
Humans watching humans engage in sexual activities is neither
abnormal nor shameful. All guilt, shame, or embarrassment about
being seen or in seeing others engaged in sexual activity is a matter of
mental and spiritual conditioning; it is a factor of what we have
been taught. Hypocritical, opinionated, inappropriate, insufficiently
researched, non-Biblical teaching has produced an
unnatural fear of all things sexual in humans, and virtually all
humans suffer from the malady.
“Immodesty,” “indecency,” “exhibitionism,” “pornography,”
and such are all matters of one’s “degree of tolerance.” The
standards that cause humans to think in terms of these “sins” are
matters of strictly subjective opinion. Therefore every individual’s
standard and degree of tolerance will necessarily be different. Let’s
prove that statement!
“Immodesty” means different things to virtually everyone.
Since the Bible does not give us a definition of “immodesty” by
which to establish strict, objective standards, we are left with our
own subjective opinions. One person believes it is immodest for any
part of a woman’s body to be seen in public except her hands. She
must be clothed from head to toe and face veiled. Anything less is
considered “immodest.” Remember those video shots of the
women in Afghanistan? But the next door neighbor believes this is
142
radical, and thinks it is okay for a woman to show her face in public
and even bare her arms but no part of her leg can be uncovered.
Another neighbor believes both the previous neighbors to be
radical, and thinks women can allow face, arms and legs below the
knee to be seen publicly. Across the street lives an even more
liberated couple whose wife is so brazen she will go outside in
shorts, yet they will stop short of visiting the public swimming pool
because everyone there is “immodestly” dressed. But their next
door neighbors believe this is radical. They visit the public pool and
wear bathing suits like everyone else, but draw the line at bikinis
because bikinis are “immodest.” However, their friends next door
think they are radical, and they enjoy going to the public pool
wearing the most abbreviated swimming attire they can find. But
they cannot tolerate the idea of a “topless permitted” beach because
“exposing a woman’s nipples is immodest.” Yet they too have even
more liberated neighbors who not only visit topless beaches, but
also enjoy vacations to nude beaches, and regularly visit nudist
retreats.
Well now, the problem here is obvious isn’t it? No matter where
people find themselves on the “chart of immodesty” described
above, their place is determined not by the objective standard of God’s
word, but by strictly subjective standards based on past experience
and subjective opinions handed down to them by parents, society
and religious teachers. Each one conforms their behavior to their
conscience; they are restricted, by misinformation, to whatever degree
of tolerance their conscience will allow. All would be well if
everyone would follow this principle for themselves alone and
allow all others to do the same without accusation. But few can do
that. Once we establish our degree of tolerance we are convinced
that any other opinion is wrong. Those who breach our opinion on
the “right” are too radical in their restrictions, and those who breach
our opinion on the “left” are too radical with what they allow. This
is true regardless of which of the above categories we fall into. The
true absurdity of all this comes clear when we realize that each one
of those neighbors say “We follow this standard because the Bible
says we must be modest.” Every one appeals to the same Bible verse
yet every one has a different standard of application for that verse.
Reader, where do you fit in that “chart of immodesty?” If you are
somewhere in the middle, thinking for example that it is OK for
women to go outside in shorts, but that those on the right are too
143
restrictive and those on the left are too loose, how do you prove
that your position is right? The Bible verse you quote does not say
what the limit is in either direction. Any attempt to establish your
opinion of what is “modest” is just another human opinion. And it
is no better than any other human opinion.
The same is true of what people consider to be “pornographic.”
One couple refuses to watch any TV show that pictures a couple
kissing because it is “indecent” to kiss in public. But their neighbors
think that is radical, and can tolerate kissing and hugging, but draw
the line at anything more. But their neighbors think they are
radical, and they think it is OK to watch a film depicting Burt
Lancaster rolling on the beach with Deborah Kerr, in their bathing
suits, kissing while the tide washes over them. But being unclothed
any more than that is too much. However their friends across the
street can tolerate a couple kissing, hugging, and the man
unbuttoning the woman’s top, exposing her bra. But they can
tolerate no more. Beside them lives another couple who believe it is
okay to watch a movie that exposes both man and woman in full
nudity, but their “love-making” must be strictly “simulated,” and
no erections allowed, nor actual touching of sexual organs, and
certainly no actual, graphic sex allowed. Their neighbors, though,
enjoy watching films that depict the full range of sexual expression
between man and woman. Which one of these “levels of
intolerance” is the right one?
Really now, try a self-test. Read the last paragraph again, and
circle the situation that for you represents your personal level of
intolerance; the situation that for you is illegitimate. Then in the
margin of this page write the Bible verse or principle that makes
that situation wrong, while allowing the others to be right. Come
on! We dare ya’ to give it a try!
Of course the point is obvious. The “degree of tolerance” in each
case is a matter of subjective opinion. Not one of the above
“neighbors” can validly define from God’s word, the basis of their
objections to “unacceptable” sexual activity. Since their standards
are set by their subjective opinions, they each differ and they each
look askance at one another because everyone else is either “too
liberal” or “too restrictive.” One woman we know believed it was
wrong to read a popular muscle building magazine because the
bodybuilders were photographed in workout gear or posing briefs.
Her label for this was “soft porn.” But this was nothing more than a
144
personal opinion. This merely reflected her personal, subjectively
based, “degree of intolerance.”
Another way of examining this is to consider Michelangelo’s
paintings on the ceiling of the Cistine Chapel. Many nudes of men
and women are painted on this ceiling. Few people regard these
nudes as pornographic. Michelangelo and many other artists depict
the nude figure in drawings, paintings, and sculpture. Is it OK to
paint such nudes and for others to enjoy looking at them? Is it then
still OK for a photographer to depict nude men and women today?
If not, how and why did it become wrong? Are painter’s canvas and
sculptor’s marble suitable vehicles for depicting nude bodies but
film is not? On what objective basis do we decide that one is OK
and the other is wrong? Carrying this thought further, if we agree
that photos of nude people are OK, then are photos of nude people
touching each other wrong? If so, by what standard did we decide
that is it wrong? Maybe we can agree that they can touch each
other. But do we decide that if overt sexual activity is
photographed, then it is wrong? What reliable standard did we use
in arriving at that conclusion? When we reach the limit of our
personal level of tolerance, are we able to define by the objective
standard of God’s word, why we are right on this issue? Can we
demonstrate to those who have a different level of tolerance that
they are wrong? Do we have anything that is more reliable than our
own personal opinion?
People are at all different levels of “degree of tolerance,” on the
matter of “pornography.” There is no hope of anyone having a
truly correct opinion on this issue unless the Bible alone is used as
an objective standard for determining what is or is not acceptable
in the area of sexual activity, specifically in writing about it or
photographing and filming it. The standards we develop out of this
approach will permit anything that God’s Word does not prohibit, on
the basis of the Biblical principle that sin is whatever violates God’s
law. If God legislates against an act then the act is sin and those who
support the act also sin. If God does not legislate against a practice
then humans are free to follow their own opinions and establish for
themselves how far they wish to go relative to any and all sexual
matters. This means that if God has not legislated against the
depiction of normal sexual activity then it is acceptable to write
about it, photograph it, film it, and for others to read about it, view
the photographs, and watch the films. By the same principle it is
145
also allowable for those who desire, to observe the actual sexual
activity of other people and to engage in sex while others observe.
It becomes a matter of personal opinion, personal taste, personal
desire, personal conscience. People are free to either do or not do in
these areas. If the Bible does not set limits, then God has left it to
people to choose as they wish, limited only by how their behavior
affects other people.
The only Biblically legitimate restrictions that can be placed upon
these activities, based on what God has forbidden, are creating and
reading or viewing writings, photographs, films, or live
performances of sexual acts that depict bestiality, rape, incest,
adultery or pedophilia in a favorable light.
This is the only Bible based definition of “pornography” that we
can discern. It disallows what God disallows, and it grants liberty where
God does not legislate. This general rule applies to all of human
conduct. God legislates against what He forbids. All else is left to
individual choice.
So in practical application, a couple or individual who choose to
do so may, without violating any Biblical standard:
• Watch a TV movie that depicts varying degrees of physical
undress, and sexual situations.
• View photographs or films containing images of nude people.
• Be photographed or filmed in the nude.
• Visit a nudist retreat or nude beach.
• Watch a dancer perform in the nude and feel no guilt or
shame at enjoying the sight.
• Perform a dance in the nude for others to enjoy.
• View photographs or watch films depicting any form of
Biblically normal sexual activity.
• Observe others engaged in any Biblically normal sexual
activity.
• Engage in any Biblically normal sexual activity while others
observe.
One remaining thought may need addressing. “Why would
anyone desire to watch other people engaged in sexual activity?
Why would anyone consent to others observing their own sexual
activity?” Both questions arise from the fundamental – albeit false –
assumption that human sex must be private, with all the baggage
that goes along with that assumption.
146
First, sexual activity, even by Biblical standards, is not
fundamentally a private activity. It is not necessary that sexual
activity be private except for those whose personal preference is that
it be.
Second, many people derive great pleasure and sexual
enjoyment from seeing others engaged in sexual activity. There is
no prohibition in Scripture against such enjoyment. It is enjoyable
for many people to watch attractive women and men enjoying sex
together. There is nothing “dirty,” “perverted,” “shameful” or
contemptible about such enjoyment.
The kindred question is “Why would people want to watch
other people dance in the nude?” The same must be asked about
why the people wanted to watch the Shulammite girl (Song of
Solomon) dance nude? As the story plainly indicates, the onlookers
loved to see her beautiful body and even cried out “come back so we
can see you.” To this request, the woman’s lover replies, teasingly,
“why do you want to look at the Shulammite?” (Song of Solomon, 6:13).
The Hebrew word for look in this verse means “to contemplate with
pleasure” (Strong’s # 2372). Our modern version of the
“audience’s” request is “encore!” These people had watched this
beautiful woman dance nude and could not get enough. They
wanted her to “come back so we can see more of you.”
Significantly, the woman’s lover is not outraged or embarrassed
either by his lover’s nudity, or by the people’s desire to see more of
her. His question “why do you want to look at her?” is rhetorical.
He knows they experienced pleasure at seeing her beautiful body
and teases them with his question. Here is a man proud of his
woman and not at all possessive of her. He is pleased that she has
danced so well before these observers that they cry out for more.
What does this say about the situation where a man’s beautiful wife
desires to dance for others? Why would he feel any more
“threatened” by this than was the Shulammite’s lover? And why
would a wife (or husband) hesitate to delight others who desire to
see her (or him) dance nude? Surely we can see from the Biblical
record that such reluctance is not founded on any Biblical standard.
It is strictly a matter of subjectivity. And such non-Biblical
inhibitions can be overcome. At the very least all non-Biblical
inhibitions must not be made a standard for anyone else’s behavior.
Our observation then is that the desire to see beautiful men and
women in the nude, is as old as the Song of Solomon. God then
147
recorded this girl’s nude dance and the reaction of all those who
observed it, in a setting which overtly pronounces His approval of
the whole scene. We must conclude then that dancing nude for
others to see and watching someone dance nude and to
“contemplate with pleasure” what we see, is acceptable to God. We
are persuaded that a significant part of the “pleasure” in watching
this girl, was sexual pleasure. The makeup of human beings
virtually demands it. Nothing about this can properly be defined as
“pornographic.”
Let us now suppose that this girl might have touched her
breasts while she danced. Would this have made her dance vulgar?
Would this have cause God to condemn it? We think not. How can
we think it acceptable to expose one’s sexual organs in a vigorous
dance, but unacceptable to touch those organs during the dance? A
dance is not vulgar merely because it is sexual. Only our subjective
opinions make it so. Our problem is that we cannot imagine a God
being as nonchalant about the human body and its sexual functions,
as God shows Himself to be. God does not mind if humans fully enjoy
their sexuality, even if that includes sexually watching and
participating with others as part of that enjoyment. God sees this all
the time in the animal kingdom just as humans do. For God to
observe His kids enjoying their bodies does not make Him angry.
On the contrary, The Song of Solomon attests to the fact that God
delights in the sexual enjoyment of his kids. How sad that we
cannot be as free to enjoy sex as God is free to allow us to enjoy it.
Thus, whether we consider a nude pose, a nude dance, or more
overt sexual activity, whether printed on paper or film, or
performed live in the presence of other people, there is nothing in
God’s word that puts a restriction on that activity. That individual
or couple is indeed “happy whose conscience does not condemn himself/
herself, in that which they approve,” (Rom. 14:22). Let everyone decide
for themselves, within the scope of what God has not prohibited,
what sexual activity they desire to enjoy; “let each one be fully
convinced in his own mind” (Rom. 14:5) and let each one be free to
operate according to the truth that “nothing is unclean in itself; but to
him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.” (Rom.
14:14). Let people enjoy the fullest range of sexual pleasure
allowable and let not others condemn them. And for those whose
consciences will not allow them to do some things that are
148
nevertheless allowable, we speak this frank word of
encouragement. Make a serious effort to throw off the guilt, shame
and bondage of false rules and false standards. If your prison door
is unlocked and swung open why remain standing in your cell?
Why not walk out into the freedom and light? In sex as in all other
matters, erroneous thinking produces bondage that prohibits
enjoying life as God allows and intends it to be lived. And even
when people do not “yield” to impulses within them to do “dirty”
(by faulty, misinformed consciences) things, their consciences
condemn them for having thoughts or desires for those things. The
truth of the Bible makes men free. Once one sees truth the only sane
response is to begin making progress toward fully embracing that
truth. Why would anyone have their shackles removed, then refuse
to lay them down and walk away from them?
This does not mean that freedom on this issue means you must
begin to watch adult videos or go to burlesque shows. It simply
means that you can and should lay down your illegitimate
baggage, and the next time you see a photograph, painting etc. of a
beautiful nude, try to look at it with appreciation rather than guilt.
Try to not avert your eyes or to furtively glance around to see if
anyone around might know you. If you have secretly enjoyed the
sight of human nakedness but could not admit it for fear of others,
muster your courage and enjoy God’s creation. You don’t have to
explain it to anyone’s satisfaction. And you can just cast off their
guilt blankets like the dirty rags they are. If you enjoy watching
adult films but have struggled with condemnation from church and
society, leave that false shame and guilt behind. Watching beautiful
people do what God created them to do is not nasty, perverted or
any such thing.
Sex is good. Sex is beautiful. Human bodies are beautiful. Don’t
allow misinformation and religious prejudice to continue to rob
you of the joy of being a sexual creature in the midst of other sexual
creatures.
149
CHAPTER SEVEN
FORNICATION
The issue here is what we refer to as “pre-marital” sex, which is
commonly categorized as “fornication,” or “promiscuity.” This
category also includes “extra-marital” sex although the common
term for that is “adultery.” We have shown that “extra-marital” sex
is not automatically forbidden in Scripture. There are many
examples in Scripture of such activity but without any word of
correction from God, and in some cases what is said indicates
God’s approval! In this chapter we will look then at both nonmarital
sex as well as extra-marital sex. We will use the term “nonmarital”
sex to indicate all sexual activity by unmarried people.
Extra-marital sex refers to sexual activity by married people, but
with someone other than their mates.
The only Biblical law that deals specifically with this issue,
giving an actual example, is Ex. 22:16-17. Here, a man has sex with
a single girl. Scripture does not designate this as sin in any sense. It
is not defined as “fornication,” or “promiscuity.” In this case, God’s
law establishes responsibility of the man toward the girl with
whom he has sex. God’s first choice is that the man marry her. But
if her father refuses the marriage, a money dowry must be paid.
Copulating with a woman mandates financial responsibility for her.
Marriage is preferred but otherwise money paid to her because of
the sex and the taking of her virginity, is allowed. This is God’s law!
Having sex with a single girl is not “fornication” or sin here. If her
“price” is paid, marriage is not mandated, and no punishment is
inflicted. This financial responsibility is part of the honoring of
relationships and the persons of others, which governs sexual practice.
A man cannot just chase every skirt he sees and treat the women
like trash. If he is going to sex a woman he must compensate her
according to her price. Marriage is God’s preference but God
Himself allows for other means of discharging this responsibility. If
the girl is at home, the father sets the price. If she is not at home the
assumption seems to be valid that the girl herself sets the price. The
only other Biblical restriction on such a practice seems to be that of
the general requirement God makes regarding everything:
“moderation in all things.” Excessive sexual indulgence is implied in
the words “lasciviousness” and “concupicence.” Being financially
150
responsible for one’s sexual practices would in itself inhibit what
we call “promiscuity.” Since we do not have the same social,
cultural setting now as prevailed in this Biblical example it is more
difficult to determine the exact requirements for appropriate
“responsibility” of a man toward a girl with whom he copulates.
We do not pretend to be able to settle this issue here. What is
apparent though is that if the sex act is performed by those who are
not married the Bible does not define it as sin. If the Bible does not
do so we cannot.
Aside from actual Biblical law, there are several examples in
Scripture of non-marital sex. For instance, in 1 Sam.21:4, 5, we read
that David and his men have been on a military campaign for some
time when they come to the temple. David requests bread for
himself and his soldiers and the priests allow David’s soldiers to
eat “consecrated bread” only if the young men have kept
themselves from “women.” Spiros Zodhiates says of this word,
“This word is used almost 800 times in the OT and its basic
meaning is a female as opposed to a male.” (Hebrew, Greek Key
Study Bible) Since they had been gone from home and had not seen
their wives for a long time, it is apparent from this context that the
“women” here were not their “wives.” If they had sex with
“women” the only penalty is that their uncleanness prohibited them
from eating the “consecrated” bread. Thus the question of the
priests is whether any of them had sex with some of the women
they encountered while on this campaign, thus not their wives.
This is made more certain by the fact that the penalty of sexual
“uncleanness” applies only to the one day on which the sex act
occurs (Lev. 15:16, 18). After the sun sets they are clean. So this
incident seems to demand that these men might have had sex while
they were following David, on the very day that they asked for
bread, and if so they could not eat the sanctified bread because they
were unclean. If any of them had sex on that day, it could not have
been with their wives. This sex then must have been non-marital,
and even extra-marital.
The question then for this study, is: if they had sex with
“women” while out in the military field, even if they were all single
men, why is there no censure or warning from the priests that this
is sin requiring sin sacrifice? This would surely be non-marital sex.
And why not take measures to rid their camp of this sin lest it bring
their defeat as did Achan’s sin at Ai? (He took gold & silver from
151
the spoils in direct disobedience to God’s command.) That there
was no sin involved in their sexual activity is apparent. The
requirement for “cleansing” was purely ceremonial, relating to the
law requiring cleansing if a man had ejaculated semen, (Lev. 15:16,
18). But sin required different sacrifices. Everything about this
circumstance then indicates that the priests were concerned that the
men might have made themselves ceremonially impure by having
sex that day. That these men may have been sexually active even
though they could not possibly have been with their wives, makes
it obvious that the priests had no qualms about non-marital sex
and certainly did not define it as sinful.
Let us now look at the definitions of the words fornication and
concupicence.
Fornication:
Heb. zana.
“to commit adultery; fig. to commit idolatry, unfaithful,
whore(dom) (Israel being God’s spouse).” (Strong’s #2181, 2, 3, 4)
“harlotry, idolatry, fornication, whoredom,” (Strong’s # 8457).
Gk. porneia, fornication; porne, (fem.) a fornicator, pornos, (masc.) a
fornicator.
“to be utterly unchaste, give self over to fornication.” (Strong’s
#1608).
“adultery and incest; fig. idolatry; fornication.”
“lit. to indulge unlawful lust (of either sex), or fig. practice
idolatry; commit fornication
“a strumpet; fig. an idolater.” “debauchee (libertine), fornicator,
whoremonger.” (Strong’s #4202, 03, 04, 05).
Comments from OTHER AUTHORS:
“Fornication: Sexual intercourse performed outside the bonds
of marriage, considered an immoral work of the flesh. The OT
depicts this as “harlotry” or “playing the harlot.” As such the
concept is used figuratively with regard to Israel’s abandonment of
its covenant ideals.”
Eerdman’s Bible Dictionary, pg. 391
“Illicit sexual relations.” “These three words denote sexual
behavior that is not in accord with OT regulations and the teaching
of the apostles and other leaders in the primitive church. The word
152
porneuo is derived from GK. pornemi. Porneia means fornication, and
other illicit sexual activities in general, including those of a
homosexual nature.
“Although any kind of illegitimate sexual intercourse is an
adequate definition of the terms, the various contexts in which
these terms occur show their application to specific situations.
According to 1 Cor. 5:1, porneia refers to the incestuous relationship
between a man and his father’s wife. (cf. Lev. 18:8) Paul addressed
a more widespread problem among the Corinthians: sexual
intercourse with prostitutes (6:12-20). Paul emphasized the
seriousness of porneia. The person who commits porneia with a
prostitute “sins against his own body” vs. 18, i.e. defiles his body,
which is the temple of the Holy Spirit.
“Immorality (pornos) meaning non-marital sexual intercourse, is
distinguished from adultery (moichos) or extra-marital sexual
intercourse, in Heb. 13:4.”
ISBE, vol. 2, pg. 345, 808, 809 –
“Fornication seems to have been used of the sin of idolatry in
the church in NT, as adultery is of the same sin with the
Jews…fornication, to play the harlot.”
E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Concordance to the English and Greek New
Testament p. 303-304.
“Concupicence” (epithumia): “The thought of this word is more
commonly expressed by the words “lust” and “sensuality.” In
keeping with its etymological derivation, it can quite properly refer
to the simple and natural act of desiring a thing for the satisfaction
to be derived therefrom. In this sense of the term…concupiscence is
perfectly normal, natural and good. It becomes evil only in excess
because any excess violates the principle of moderation dictated by
reason…The satisfaction of physical desire in man is not evil in
itself since it is inherent in the constitution of man as created by
God.... -Although sin is primarily spiritual, it manifests itself also in
the corruption of all phases of man’s physical nature. So thirst
becomes an excuse for drunkenness; hunger for gluttony; sex for
lust. But sin is essentially spiritual and physical sins are derivative
and secondary in nature.
The exact relation between spiritual and physical sin is obscure
and not easy to analyze… Sometimes sensuality actually deifies or
idolizes something or someone… Concupiscence has a great variety
153
of forms and consists of “any inordinate devotion to a mutable
good,” of which sexual license is only the most striking example.”
20th Century Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 1, pg. 285-256.
“(The words refer to) harlot for hire, whoremonger, male
prostitute, licentiousness, fornication to live licentiously (indulging
freedom to excess).” It is used of cultic prostitution, both as a single
act and a general state. Prostitutes are unknown in the Homeric
age, but men often have concubines, e.g. female slaves. The
professional “friend” becomes a common figure in Greek society
and since intercourse is regarded as just as natural as eating and
drinking, extramarital affairs are permitted for husbands. Yet
excess is censured, and Plato defends intercourse with harlots only
as long as it is secret and causes no offense. Among harlots those in
brothels form the lowest class, those with some artistic skill a
higher group, and independent harlots who can command high
prices, another higher class.
“In OT the porneuo group has such sense as “to be unfaithful.” It
may be used of the prostitute, of the betrothed, or married woman
who proves unfaithful; figuratively it is used for apostasy as
unfaithfulness to God, and to “turn aside from God and go after
other gods.” Social problems promote prostitution (Am. 7:17).
Custom protects virgins but men are allowed some freedom as long
as they avoid the wives of others. The Law provides severe
penalties for betrothed women who are unfaithful.”
Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, one vol. edition,
pg. 918-920
Observations:
From the above definitions, it is obvious that “fornication,” and
“concupicence” do not inherently define specific acts as sinful.
They are both generic words whose specific meaning must be
derived from their contextual settings. In other words,
“fornication” does not mean “sex between unmarried people,” even
though this is the definition we learned “from them of old time”
and preached for years. Fornication means simply “illegitimate
sexual activity.” What is illegitimate must be defined by God else it
cannot be said to be illegitimate. Illegitimate sexual activities as
defined by Scripture would be: Adultery, Incest, Bestiality, Rape, forced
prostitution upon one’s daughter, sex as pagan worship and pederasty.
We treat pederasty (exploitative sex by an older man with a young
154
boy) as a separate issue because there is so much to deal with on
the general issue of homosexuality. Our book, God Is Not A
Homophobe, deals thoroughly with this issue.
The above definitions show that porneia, and zana have the
essential meaning of “illicit sexual activity.” Neither word defines
exactly what that activity is. They are generic words,
comprehending under their umbrella all the specific activities
which God’s law classifies as illicit.
Since God does not – anywhere – define pre-marital sex as “illicit” then
we cannot place it under the category of fornication.
This phrase from ISBE, is incorrect: “Immorality (pornos)
meaning non-marital sexual intercourse, is distinguished from
adultery (moichos) or extra-marital sexual intercourse, in Heb. 13:4.”
There is no such distinction indicated by the words themselves. The
Hebrew writer seems to take precaution to be sure that his readers
understand that adultery specifically, plus all forms of sexual sin,
will come under God’s judgment.
God does not define as illegitimate the practices of pre-marital
sex, masturbation, oral sex and perhaps others, therefore these
practices cannot be put under the heading of fornication. And only
if any of these practices become “excessive” can they be called
“concupicence.”
The conclusion that may be drawn from these facts seems to be
that God is not particularly disturbed by the mere physical act of
sex between two people, whether married or unmarried. What He
is concerned about is the relationship between them, the
responsibility of the man toward the woman and the need to keep
sexual appetite within appropriate boundaries so that sex does not
become obsessive. This last issue is the same as with eating too much
food (gluttony) and drinking too much wine (drunkenness). It is
not at all clear from Scripture that God condemns men and women
who have sex outside of marriage. What is clear is that in the only
instances where He actually references this issue He does not
require sin sacrifice for either man or woman but legislates only for
the protection of the woman. While this conclusion sounds radical,
the test is easy to take: simply read the whole Bible, note every
instance of law against sexual practice, fairly define the words
used, and see if there is any other conclusion warranted.
155
The issue of whether sex outside marriage is advisable is a
different question. We seek only to find whether God defines it as
sin. Our studied opinion is that He does not so define it.
Sex And Single People
Special attention should be given to the sexual needs of single
people. Standard church dogma remains “thou shalt not.” Yet not
even in OT theology is such stringency mandated for the single
person. As shown above the Bible does not directly address this
issue, and the word “fornication” does not address this issue. In
other words, the Bible does not contain a law, an example, or a word
that designates sexual activity by single people. Therefore it is
impossible to honestly state that “The Bible condemns sex by single
people.” We realize that this statement is made virtually every
week by some public proclaimers, somewhere in the world, who
put it forth as “God’s word.” But being repeated numberless times
by church authorities does not make it true. The fact is that God did
not say it! We challenge the truly diligent reader to try to find any
statement in Scripture where God condemns sex by single people
whether by example, by law or by legitimate lexigraphy. It is not
there. We know how radical that statement seems. Given the
universal and emphatic declarations to the contrary, one might
think us to be on unsupportable ground. But we say again, the test
is easy for anyone to take. Don’t go to your preacher and ask him if
this statement is true. Preachers are honest but blind about some
things just like the rest of us. In sexual matters especially, religious
leaders have much to gain by not questioning the status quo and
many will not even seriously consider any alternate viewpoint on
any sexual matter. They have been trained by their mentors,
pressured by their peers, and threatened by their financial
insecurity to give nothing but the “majority report” on sexual
issues. So if you want to be confident that you are getting close to
objective Bible truth, look for yourself. You will be amazed, even
flabbergasted at what you find when you look for yourself, with
eyes that want to see what is in the Bible. You may even be angry at
what has been kept from you by those who were responsible to tell
you “just the truth ma’am,” but who, for many reasons, could not
even find the truth for themselves. Read the appendix to this book,
156
and learn to use Bible research tools, and correct bible study
methods, for yourself. The hard work will richly reward you.
People are not devoid of desire or need for sexual activity
merely because they are single. The sexual urge arises very early in
a child’s life. No person lives without any sexual feelings or desires
until they are married. What? Do we think that magically, once a
minister pronounces them “man and wife” and gives the man
permission to “kiss the bride,” their gonads spring into action, their
sexual passion ignites, and suddenly for the very first time, the
married couple desires to “make love.” We know, we know: the
very idea is silly. But doesn’t it mean something about God’s
purpose for sex, that His creative hand released sexual urges even
in children, but never told them that they must “wait until
marriage or go to hell?” We tell them that but God did not.
If sex is a gift from God it is as much a gift to single people as to
married people. It is neither compassionate nor Biblical to tell them
that they must “be celibate or be damned.” Sex is “good” for the
single as for anyone else. What is needed is a loving approach to
single people that does not confine them to a sexual prison of our
own human design; that opens the door to sexual activity while
teaching them their personal obligation to “love” those with whom
they are sexually involved. This means that single people must
understand the obligations of love that arise in consideration of
such issues as possible pregnancy and venereal disease, honesty
regarding intentions, responsibility for the welfare of their sexual
partners and so forth. If Biblical agape guides the single person, sex
is no more withheld from him/her than for married people.
Church tradition holds that marriage is the only venue for
sexual expression. Church dogma on this matter can be stated
thusly: “Yes, sex is a gift from God and is a legitimate pleasure for
men and women, but heterosexual marriage is the only provision
God gives for its expression.” This concept is stated with such force
and confidence that one expects to be able to read such a statement
in Scripture. But there is no such statement. People have
interpreted certain Biblical statements to “mean” this, and then
they bind this personal interpretation upon all others as Divine law.
Let us be clear: The “sexual activity only within the confines of
heterosexual, monogamous marriage” dogma, rests on no more
substantial foundation than subjective human interpretation! This
dogma is human conclusion, not Divine statement. All the arguments
157
from Scripture presented by Catholic and Protestant theologians
fail to provide a satisfactory and clearly demonstrable explanation
of why sexuality must be expressed only within monogamous
marriage. This concept is read into Scripture. It is not derived from
Scripture. Some more “liberal” ones will go so far as to admit the
permissibility of “pre-ceremonial” sex between engaged couples,
while yet inconsistently holding firmly to the “marriage only”
ethic. No satisfactory reasons are given for this position. Indeed,
such a position denies the reality expressed by dozens of Biblical
passages that demonstrate various circumstances in which sex
either was, or could have been enjoyed outside marriage and with
apparent Divine approval.
The Song of Solomon details in sexually graphic fashion the
passion of a woman and man who delight in their sexuality. Their
sex is neither “marital” nor “pre-ceremonial.” Their purpose in sex
is not to have children. Their delight in one another is simple
passion – pure, holy, delightful passion. Though not using the
vulgarisms so commonly used today, this poem paints delightful
word pictures of the male and female bodies including the sex
organs. There is in this poem no fear of passion, no shame at sexual
delight. This poem is God’s tribute to the delightfulness and
importance of sexual desire as part of His “good” creation. That it’s
two primary actors are not married is telling in profoundly
significant ways. That’s right: read that little poem and see if you
think that this sexually involved couple is married.
Today young people are refusing the church’s and society’s
taboos on pre-marital and extra-marital sex. And well they should.
We are not saying that people have license to run amok and
exercise no restraint. But single people have no responsibility to
honor taboos that have no genuine foundation in God’s word. The
issue of “promiscuity” is important. However, no Divine guidance
exists for defining exactly at what point sexual activity become
“promiscuous.” In fact the Bible has no word that is equivalent to
our English word “promiscuous.” We will go further to state that
the Bible does not even address the issue of what we call
“promiscuity.” This word is truly a religious “buzz word.”
Religious teachers use it constantly to threaten anyone who might
be tempted to experience sex in any way outside monogamous
marriage. The closest the Bible comes to what this word suggests to
our minds is its use of the word epithumia, which is translated
158
variously as “lust” or “concupicence.” But as “concupicence” the
words merely indicates “going too far” sexually. Yet the Bible does
not show how far is “too far.” The Bible also condemns
“drunkenness” but gives no guideline for determining exactly at
what point one becomes “drunk.” God requires responsible
individuals to exercise self-restraint in using alcohol. God also
condemns “gluttony” yet He gave no Biblical guideline for
deciding when occasional over-eating has become gluttony. We
may enjoy good food and lots of it, but we are required to exercise
personal discipline and self-restraint. God condemns “greed” but
does not tell us at what point legitimate pursuit of money becomes
sinful “greed.” The same principle is true of sex. To define as
“promiscuous” any sex outside marriage is absurd. Unfortunately
there is no word that describes a middle ground between
“concupicence” and “chaste.”
Surely it is time for us to attempt to exercise loving,
compassionate concern for the needs of single people. Can it be
right to require single people to totally subjugate a passion they feel
every bit as strongly as do married people? Can we find courage to
tell them that the ethics of Jesus requires only that they exercise
responsible self-restraint in sex as in all other things? And can we
tell them that the ethics of Jesus requires them to engage others
sexually in full consideration for the other person’s needs, desires
and well-being? Can we in fact trust Jesus when He tells us all that
His “law of love” replaces, and will serve us better than all the
commandments ever written?
The distinctive element of Christian morality is the primacy of
Christ’s love command. First, we must be completely devoted to
God. Then we are required to love people and be devoted to their
welfare (Matt. 22:37-40). This love – agape – is not a human emotion
or sentiment. It is not based on whether we like or dislike a person
or whether we agree or disagree with their life-style. It is a
standard to which all our attitudes and conduct must conform. This
love is not conditioned on expectations of reciprocity or evaluations
of a person’s worthiness. We are told to love our enemies: a
standard of conduct that transcends customary rules of morality,
(Lk. 6:27-33). It is not an easy moral command to obey. It requires
that we rise above and reach beyond personal, selfish desires so
that we properly and actively value other people even if they are
enemies. Jesus requires us to embrace a morality that requires a
159
constructive, compassionate, unconditional and concrete commitment
to other people and their needs.
This agape is especially needed as the spiritual venue in which
discussion is conducted about the viability of various sexual
expressions such as singles-and-sex, homosexuality, prostitution,
polygamy, masturbation, oral sex and perhaps others. It is good
and right that forceful, passionate argumentation is brought to bear
on all such issues. But resolution will never come from
argumentation apart from mutual respect for people of good will,
and toleration of reasoned and reasonable moral differences. Love
plus a thorough going, personal “reality check” will enable us to
accept the reality that we are all subject to self-righteousness and
unjust intolerance. Knowledge of right and wrong, like knowledge
of God, is imperfect and is in the process of being refined in all of
us. Despite the high confidence we place in religious beliefs and the
moral judgments derived from them, our beliefs and judgments
should always be held with a loose grip because none of us are
infallible and none of us are 100% objective. People of faith should
remain open to new insights into the nature and will of God and to
new understandings of right and wrong. If God’s revelation was
subject to perfect comprehension and if humanity had perceived all
of God there is to understand, then the ministry of the Holy Spirit
would be unnecessary and none of us would need to read the Bible
anymore. Theological and Biblical studies are continually clarifying
the meanings and applications of authoritative sources with respect
to God, humanity and the relation of each to the other. Faith is
neither knowledge nor certainty. What understanding any of us
have on any issue is incomplete and we must take the rest by faith.
Our present concepts do not constitute all truth. For Christians
human agape supercedes all other rules of conduct.
In generations not far removed from our own we subjected
black people to the most horrible injustices imaginable. Our open,
even proud contempt for them as a class was exemplified by the
special words we used to identify and to insult them: “nigger”
“spook” “coon” etc. For years the church contributed to racial
bigotry and hatred through the teaching of many religious
“scholars” who believed and taught, from the Bible, that black
people were subhuman, made to be slaves, the descendants of
either Cain or Canaan whose blackness was inherited through the
curse God put upon those men for their sins. As the world
160
excluded them from social and economic equality and opportunity,
so did the church exclude them from full Christian fellowship and
spiritual opportunity. They were required to sit in the back of the
bus and in the back of the church. Slowly we grew to understand
the hideous nature of what we were doing and black people began
to be invited into white churches by a few daring leaders. Many
churches experienced bitter division as some accepted their black
“brethren” and others continued to reject them on “Biblical”
grounds. Ever-so-slowly change has come though we are still far
away from dealing with black people righteously. The point here is
that what we passionately held as deeply rooted, genuine religious
conviction brought horrible injustice upon a whole race of people.
We had to repent of wrongly held and hurtful values.
Women have suffered for ages from the patriarchal stranglehold
men have on society and the church. They have been relegated to
the backwaters of every aspect of society and religious life. Women
still do not receive equal pay for equal work. Women were not
allowed political office. Women in many instances were not even
allowed to obtain a college education. Women were used as
possessions and child-factories. It was a matter of pride for a man
to “keep the little woman barefoot and pregnant.” Their status was
little better than slaves, subject to the whims and demands of their
husbands and virtually all other males. We also had special words
by which we demonstrated our contempt for women. We would
verbally abuse a woman by calling her a “bitch” “slut” or a “cunt.”
If we wanted to insult a man we called him a “sissy” or “pussy.”
We accused him of wearing “panties.” The church contributed to
this sinful gender bias through Bible exposition and teaching (all
done by men) that held women to be “in subjection to the man.”
They meant by this that women, as a class, were inferior to men and
not deserving of the same consideration, opportunities, etc. as were
men. Once again, so pitifully slowly, the church is learning better
and what was passionately held dogma in all churches has
gradually, and in many cases grudgingly, given way to the
realization that women are viable participants not only in society,
the workplace and government, but also in the church. We had to
repent of wrongly held and hurtful values.
One of the greatest wars now raging in the church and society
surrounds homosexuality. Again we have our special words of
contempt and insult: “queer” “faggot” “cock-sucker” “dyke”
161
“butch” etc. Homosexuals have suffered at the hand of society and
the church in horrible ways. Our own generation has witnessed
many examples of gay-bashing and even murder of homosexuals.
They are discriminated against in the workplace, in government
and in many other segments of society. But it is the church that
most vociferously and violently damns them. As always there is
impassioned appeal to Scripture for the justification of unloving,
unjust, inconsiderate, even inhumane treatment of these human
beings. We say their sin justifies our hateful treatment of them.
“They are reaping what they have sown” or something like that.
Yet again the church, through continued study and learning is,
with agonizing slowness, seeing that it has been as wrong about
homosexuality as it was about women’s rights and black people’s
rights. Teachers, preachers and theologians are doing better
research and seeing more light and some of them are exercising
great courage to go public with what they are finding.
Consequently churches are slowly beginning to show agape to
homosexually oriented people. So much work and progress still
needs to occur but at least the beginnings are here. The church will
surely one day own up to its error and sin in this matter as it has
had to do on other issues. We will have to repent of wrongly held
and hurtful values. Love – agape – demands that we do so.
A study of all God’s laws regarding sex reveals His basic
concern. God was not afraid of sex or fearful that His people might
actually enjoy sex. The erotic joy and power inherent in sexuality is
by God’s wonderful design. God expects us to enjoy sex. We honor
God when we thrill at sexual pleasure. Evaluating God’s written
will regarding all things sexual leads us to the conclusion that
sexual morality or immorality is never a matter of what specific acts
are acceptable or unacceptable. Rather sexual morality or
immorality is an expression either of loving or of hurtful human
relationships. Relationships are moral when they are mutual,
supportive of the full personal growth of each person, committed to
the needs of each other and faithful to each other. Relationships are
immoral when they are abusive, violent and exploitative; when
they prevent people from developing and lead to lying, deceit and
betrayal.
This norm of sexual morality based on loving relationships
eliminates the neat boundaries between moral and immoral sex
that are so important to church leaders and civil authorities who
162
feel compelled to keep everyone in proper moral alignment
through legislation of morality. Procreation in heterosexual,
monogamous marriage ceases to be the standard by which all
sexuality is measured. What is moral or immoral sexually becomes
more a question of a scale of values than of clear boundaries. A
relationship based on love rather than commands and laws
promotes development in the lovers. We are able to grow toward
healthy, loving, supportive, mutual relationships, and away from
abusive and dishonest ones. The morality of homosexual
relationships is to be based on the same standard and judged
equally with heterosexual relationships. And the question of the
morality of polygamy and prostitution are likewise to be judged by
the standard of love, not rules. Additionally the practices of
masturbation, oral sex, use of sex toys, erotic materials, consensual
extra-marital sex and sex by single people are judged by the same
standard. What works no harm to others is not forbidden. Those
who prefer to enjoy those practices may do so.
It is immensely important to all of us that we remember and
practice what the Apostle Paul implies in 1 Cor. 13:12, 13. Love, the
greatest of all spiritual qualities, will endure forever. Love is
greater than judgment, than personal opinions, than condemnation,
than all other considerations. Far better it is to love a person who is
palpably wrong than to condemn or accuse. We do not have all the
answers and we never will unless somehow we become infallible.
And we have made too many mistakes in the past by interpreting
Biblical statements exclusively in the light of our own modern
cultural and ecclesiastical context. We have hurt too many people
by establishing unbreakable rules on the flimsy foundation of our
fallible and often gullible understanding. In doing so we have
subjected millions of innocent people to horrible suffering, whose
only offense is in being born either female or with black skin. We
must cease committing the same sins against those whose sexual
practices do not meet our personal standards especially in light of
the absence of unambiguous biblical evidence. God requires of us
the same grace toward others that He has exhibited toward us. Of
all laws, rules, and ethical standards that have ever been given
there is only one that is eternal. Standing above even faith and
hope, the greatest of all is love. In the midst of trying to discern
what God does and does not allow ethically we cannot be excused
if we violate the greatest and most unambiguous command of all.
163
We must love one another. We must love the polygamist, the
homosexual, the prostitute and the single who celebrates his/her
sexuality. At the very least this means that we must not exclude
sexually active singles from participation in the church, must not
relegate them to “second-class” status and must make overt
attempts to relate to them in loving, encouraging ways. As God has
so freely given grace to we who are so utterly undeserving so must
we be willing to give grace to those whom we consider to be utterly
undeserving. To do otherwise closes off any legitimate expectation
we may have of obtaining future grace.
Transparently and Biblically stated, our proposition is this:
Within the parameters of true love for God and fellow men we are
free to enjoy our sexuality as fully as we desire, in the manner we
desire and with whom we desire. Loving God means that we
sanctify sex by thanking Him for it and honoring His requirement
that we treat others as we desire to be treated. Loving others means
that we treat them with respect and dignity, that we demonstrate
concern for their welfare, that we do nothing that compromises
their safety and well-being or takes advantage of their
vulnerability.
The law of love thus opens sexual expression to single people,
couples who desire to include others into their partnership whether
permanently or short term and prostitutes by choice. It allows
masturbation, oral sex and the use of erotic writings, photos and
films as means of sexual stimulation. It allows voluntary use of “sex
toys” such as vibrators for sexually stimulating oneself or one’s
lover. It allows playing sexually with others who volunteer to play.
It allows people to enjoy this gift of sex without shame and fear.
Doubtless that was God’s original intention.
Multiple Sex Partners
Now we consider the general examples of multiple sexual
relationships where polygamy or concubinage seems not to be
involved. There are not many of these examples but enough, we
think, to illustrate God’s attitude toward non-marital sexual
activity. The church has universally branded all such activities as
“fornication” if done by unmarried parties and “adultery” if either
of the parties is married. Of course God’s acceptance of polygamy
and concubinage proves that not all multiple sex relations are
164
“sinful.” David never committed fornication or adultery in his sex
relations with his many wives and concubines. We mentioned that
Solomon had enough wives and concubines to have sex with three
different women, every night for a year! Yet none of that would
constitute adultery or fornication. So what is the real Bible stance
on the practice of a man or a woman having sexual relationships
with more than one person at a time? Let’s look at the few Biblical
texts that deal with this matter.
King Abimelech takes Abraham’s wife, Sarah, to enjoy sex with
her, (Gen. 20:1-18). In a dream God warns him “she is married,” (vs.
3). Abimelech’s defense is that, “he said she is my sister,” (vs. 4,5).
God grants Abimelech’s “integrity” in taking Sarah, thinking she is
single, (vs. 6, 7). Yet Abimelech is married, (vs. 17, 18)! Abimelech has
“integrity” before God because he knows “sin” is involved in
taking the sexual property of another man, (vs. 9) & he is careful to
avoid “sin” in sexual matters.
God answers Abraham’s prayers for Abimelech by healing his
wife & maids so they can have children. Abimelech was enjoying sex
with many women, “all the wombs of his household,” (vs. 17, 18).
Since God knows his “integrity” why did He not inform Abimelech
that it is wrong to have multiple sex partners? Why not even a
syllable indicating sex with both his wife and his maids is wrong? It
is notable in this story that the only censure coming from God is
that Abimelech attempted to have sex with another man’s wife. The
only fly in this ointment is that Sarah is married. The necessary
conclusion is that if Sarah had not been married Abimelech could
have added her to the women who already served his sexual
desires and this would have been acceptable. God’s answer to
Abimelech’s prayer, opening his wife’s and maid’s wombs, proves
God’s approval of his bearing children through several different women.
Now since Abimelech needs prayer why does God not require that
he “repent” of his much womanizing as a pre-requisite for
answering prayer? Obviously God does not see that Abimelech
needs to “repent” of anything except attempting to take another
man’s wife.
It is quite obvious from this incident that Abimelech was a man
of great sexual desire. Having many women already available to
him he yet takes in Sarah as another prospective sexual partner. In
this he maintains his “integrity” before God. It is important that we
165
get the real importance of this: God said “Abimelech, I know that you
are a man of great integrity, and that you do not knowingly sin. You do
not knowingly take what is not yours. You have a wife and many maids
with whom you have sex. It is not a lack of integrity for you to desire one
more woman. But Sarah is married. She belongs to another man. You
must not attempt to steal her from him.” It is apparent that if Sarah had
been single, having sex with her would not have brought any
disfavor from God. This is another instance in proof that God is not
fundamentally concerned about how many women have sex with
how many men. He is concerned about our being faithful and
responsible to established relationships. There is nothing inherent in
the sexual act that requires that one man enjoy sex with only one
woman for life. The Bible is too full of examples to the contrary,
with God’s approval. What is clear is that God’s law does not
concern itself primarily with who has sex with whom, nor with
how many sexual partners one has. God’s law mandates honoring
relationships and being responsible toward those with whom we
enjoy sex. No man or woman is allowed to break up an existing
marriage by sex or any other device.
One can live in full sexual “integrity” before God and have sex
with someone other than one’s mate (Abimelech, David, Abraham,
Solomon, Gideon, etc.) as long as one honors one’s own established
relationships and the relationships of those with whom one has
“extra-marital” sex. We have shown in the chapter on adultery that
having sex with another person’s mate is no longer automatically
forbidden. Since the reasons for that prohibition no longer exist
then it is possible for married people to have sex with other
married people without sin as long as all the parties involved are
agreeable to the practice. If for example a wife refuses to accept the
practice then the husband cannot disregard his relationship with
his wife and have sex with others anyway. This is adultery. In this
matter as in all sexual matters, the issue of marital status is no
longer primary. The primary issue is love, concern, due regard for
established relationship and what is good for the other person
involved.
Isaac lies about Rebekkah saying that she is his sister.
Abimelech rebukes him because one of the men might have “lain
with your wife…” and brought guilt upon them, (Gen. 26:10). The
sin is not in laying with a woman, but with a wife! These two
incidences demonstrate the folly of trying to make concubinage and
166
such acts a detestable thing for pagans and a merely tolerated thing
for the sake of Israel. Abimelech is a pagan who has “integrity”
before God and engages in these actions without any correction
from God. If it is the pagan aspect that so aggravates God, this
would be a perfect place to reveal it to us. But again we are left
with no correction. It is unthinkable that God would inspire these
two stories without taking opportunity while telling the story, to
illuminate His people for all time about His hatred for multiple
sexual relationships. He corrects Abimelech’s potential “adultery.”
He commends Abimelech’s “integrity” in thinking he was merely
taking another single woman. Both this commendation of
“integrity” and His silence about the “sinfulness” of multiple
sexual relationship, speak more than enough for us to draw some
well founded conclusions. For example:
• God apparently approves of Abimelech, though married,
taking another woman for a sexual partner. Can we believe God
detests Abimelech’s sexual practices yet blesses those practices by
opening the wombs of his many women and giving him many
children?
• God quite obviously does not view the sex act as we view it.
There seems not to be a great difference in God’s mind between
the sex act itself as experienced by either animal or human.
What we have grown to view as dirty & perverted, God
evidently sees as a normal biological function with no inherent
moral implications.
• This kind of “debauchery” that makes us pull our spiritual
hair, God simply looks at, disregards, and lets Abimelech go on
his way.
• Human relationship is the key to understanding this entire
sexual area. God’s regulations on sexual practice have to do
with honoring appropriate relationships. For Abimelech as for
all men, this means no one is allowed to take another man’s
wife. Abimelech would have taken Sarah into his harem and
Abraham would have lost his wife. This is what constitutes
“adultery.” Adultery is not merely having sex with a married
woman. Adultery is taking a wife away from her husband;
breaking the marriage bond. This is the reason adultery cannot
be committed with a single woman.
167
Judah asks Onan to make Tamar pregnant because her husband
died without an heir. Judah has sex with Tamar but withdraws his
penis to ejaculate on the ground. God kills him for this breach of
law and for his contempt for his brother’s lineage. God approved of
his sex with Tamar and actually made provision for exactly this
situation in His law. But God killed Onan because he refused to
bring forth an heir for his brother. Thus a married man enjoys sex
with his sister-in-law because God requires it. If he completes the act
all is well, but he is killed for not depositing his seed in her. This
has nothing to do with masturbation. The sin is refusing to give
offspring to his brother, (Gen. 38:7- 9). Are you sure that you got
the real point of this example? God demands that Judah (a married
man) have sex with Tamar (his sister in law). God kills Judah not
for having “extra-marital” sex but for not finishing the act by
ejaculating within her! Regardless of what we have heard all our
lives, having “extra-marital” sex is not automatically damnable.
Gilead enjoyed sex with a “harlot” who bore Jephthah, yet
Gilead is married and has several sons by his wife, (Jdg. 11:1, 2).
There is no censure from God for Gilead’s act of taking a sexual
partner other than his wife. What a perfect place to condemn the
practice of prostitution as well as that of “adultery or “fornication.”
How can anyone believe that God hates the practice of prostitution,
yet while relating a story that focuses on that very act He never
says a word that tells us He hates the act? He never hesitates to tell
us that he hates “adultery.” So, what do you make of His silence on
these other matters?
Samson’s wife is given to his friend, (Jdg. 14:20). Her father
offers his younger daughter to Samson, (15:1, 2). There is not even a
hint that this sexual “switcheroo” displeased God.
After enjoying sex with a harlot in Gaza, Samson “loved…
Delilah,” i.e. enjoyed sex with her. Now Samson is working on his
third woman and yet there is no correction by God, who again fills
him with power, (Jdg. 16:4-14). It is important to remember that
underlying this whole story is the fact that Samson is a Nazarite;
i.e. one who is especially holy before God. How can God bless
Samson as “holy” and allow him to manifest His power while
Samson is so “promiscuous?” Obviously the problem God has with
sex is not what we assume. When we say “promiscuous” God says
168
“ho-hum.” Samson might have enjoyed sex with a hundred women
without ever breaching God’s holiness. David did so and Solomon
likewise. God’s anointing and power remained upon Samson as
long as he was faithful to his Nazarite vows even though he
enjoyed sex with several women. It is not the sex that God legislates
against; it is the abuse of relationships He outlaws.
The final Biblical word on Samson honors him as a man of faith
and righteousness, (Heb. 11: 32,33). He is an example for Christians!
It is folly for any of us to attempt to reproach Samson’s sexual
appetites and practices seeing that God does not, the author of
Hebrews does not and he is listed as a hero of faith with not a
syllable of Divine rebuke for his sexual activities. These are the sort of
hard facts that prove God’s attitude toward sex is nothing at all
what we have been taught. We have actually accused God falsely of
basically hating sex, or basically fearing his people will have too
much fun with it, or considering it basically unclean, or…. The facts
are clear. God does not dislike human sex and He does not mind at
all that we enjoy sex with many people in many different ways. He
merely requires that we honor all those people by doing nothing
that harms them or that threatens existing relationships.
A man dies and his 6 brothers, each in turn, have sex with the
widow trying to give the dead brother a child, (Mk. 12:19ff; Lk.
20:27ff). Jesus corrects the Jewish leader’s error relative to their
misunderstanding of the existence of marriage at the resurrection,
but Jesus does not utter a syllable about the example, based on OT
theology and practice, being wrong. The example was based upon
established OT law and Jesus accepted it as Divinely approved.
Can you imagine Jesus believing that it was wrong for six brothers
to have sex with the same woman and not say a word about this
“sin?” What does His silence prove? It proves that He saw nothing
that needed to be corrected.
So what is God’s attitude toward what we call sexual
“promiscuity?” Scripture will not allow us to conclude that sex with
many different partners is sinful. Too many heroes of faith, the
most highly favored leaders of Israel, the greatest religious men of
all time, had sex with many women and never lost their divine call
or their anointing. Sex is not unholy. Sex with more than one partner
is not unholy. Sex with anyone that results in a broken marriage is
169
adultery and is condemned. Forcing sex upon someone (rape) is
condemned. Incest is condemned. But sex with multiple partners is
not condemned. How we feel about this is utterly irrelevant. What is
relevant to this issue and absolutely crucial, is what the Bible actually
says and what it does not say. No human is obliged to forego a
liberty and a blessing of sexual experience simply because the
church or social standards says it is wrong. Nothing is wrong that
God’s law does not make wrong. This universe has only one
Lawgiver. His name of Jehovah. And Jehovah’s law does not forbid
people from enjoying sex with more than one partner. What
Jehovah’s law requires is that we restrict our sexual activities in
such a way that people’s individual rights to maintain control over
their own body are respected and that established relationships are
not damaged. How many times a person has sex and with how
many partners is not something God has legislated.
Can One Person “Love” More than One Other Person?
In counseling sessions, we have frequently heard statements
something like these: “Why can’t I satisfy him/her?” “Why does
he/she want to have sex with another woman/man?” “Why
doesn’t he/she love me any more?” These questions arise from
situations where one’s mate has either actually experienced sexual
relations with another person, or has expressed the desire to do so.
The “faithful” mate is crushed by the knowledge that they are not
able to “satisfy” their partner. Our “Christianized(?)” culture has
taught for generations that one woman can satisfy all the desires of
one man and vice versa, and that any desire for more than that is
degeneracy, promiscuity and lust. But this is an insane position in
light of the multitude of examples in Scripture of holy people not
just desiring more than one mate, but experiencing multiple
relationships.
In view of the many examples we have seen in Scripture of men
having sex with many women, why is there jealousy, on either the
man’s or the woman’s part in the event that there is a desire in
either one to have sex with another person? What do we think was
the norm during OT times when a husband made love to one wife
one night, then another wife the next, then his slave the next, then a
concubine the next, then…? We never see the “jealousy factor” arise
in Scripture except in such cases as Sarah’s jealousy over Hagar’s
170
child bearing and Rachel’s jealousy over Leah’s child bearing. Do we
actually think David’s harem was filled with women seething in
jealousy over his sexual relations with any woman other than
herself? Do we imagine that any of David’s wives and concubines
grieved when they heard that he had consorted with Bathsheba,
crying, “why can’t I satisfy David’s sexual desires?” or, “Doesn’t he
love me any more?”
Perhaps it will help us think this through if we do not equate
copulation with “love.” They are not the same. Animals copulate
but do not love each other. When sex and love combine, both are
enhanced. But love is a factor of the soul and sex is a factor of the
body. It is wonderful when they both meet, but it is not necessary
that they do so. In countless human situations, love is real where no
sexual activity occurs, and just as legitimately, sex occurs without
the ingredient of “love” at least in the romantic sense. One can
“have sex” without “making love.” What we call “making love” is
actually better described as “enjoying sex.” One does not equal the
other. For committed partners, “making love” is a fitting
description of the sex act because it has the quality of love
combined with the physical act. But when sex is enjoyed between
two people who are not married and who do not “love” each other
it is not “making love,” it is simply “enjoying sex.” Therefore the
heading of this article is actually a misnomer. It is not that one
person is “loving” more than one person. It is rather that one
person is “enjoying sex” with more than one person. If this idea is
distasteful to the reader please realize that this is exactly what
occurred in the examples given above of Abimelech, Gilead, and
Samson.
On the other hand, it is truly acceptable for one person to truly
and deeply “love” more than one person at a time. Again the Bible
is full of examples of this very thing. A wife should not feel
threatened by her husband’s desire to experience sex with another
woman. In all the thousands of examples of this very practice in OT
we never find a hint that the first wife was threatened or jealous of
the fact that her husband had sex with others except in the event
the other woman had children and the first wife had none. For the
same reasons no husband should feel threatened or jealous if his
wife desires to experience sex with another man. Given our modern
brainwashing with the opposite viewpoint it may be impossible for
171
most men and women to reach this point. But we are simply
attempting to understand what is or is not required by the Bible.
Is Sexual Enjoyment Adverse To Holiness?
Can a person enjoy sex with more than one person, and still be
holy? The answer is twofold:
1] If sex is inherently unholy, then strictly monogamous sex is
unholy which means married people must seek God’s forgiveness
and cleansing every time they have sex in order to be qualified to
worship Him. No one believes this is true. Sexual activity is not
inherently unholy.
2] Since sexual activity is not inherently unholy then there is
nothing inherently unholy in the fact that one person has sex with
more than one other person. Sex between multiple partners is not
unholy unless God legislates against it. And this He does not do. Not
only is there no Biblical law against “Polyamory” (loving many),
but the Bible is filled with examples of exemplary “saints” (i.e.
“holy ones”) of God, having sex with many different partners, with
God’s approval.
God’s holiest servants loved sex and had sexual relations with
more than one partner. The most outstanding men of the Old
Testament enjoyed sex with multiple wives, concubines, slaves and
prostitutes yet God accepted their faith and holiness without
question. We have given the examples of Abraham, Jacob, Gideon,
David, etc.
It is doubtless impossible for most religious people to imagine
that a godly, holy, faith filled, Spirit filled saint could have sex with
a concubine, then get up next morning to worship God and pray,
without being a hypocrite. But David proves it is possible. David is
the author of our Worship/praise/prayer manual – the Psalms.
Every generation recognizes the Psalms as the epitome of a holy
man’s communion with God. David, a “man after God’s own
heart,” wrote and worshipped God with these Psalms. But David
enjoyed the pleasures of sex with many more women than Michal,
his first wife. Could David have sex with a concubine or with one
of his servants and get up early the next morning to “awaken the
dawn” with prayer and worship? Certainly! Did God accept it?
Definitely! Was David holy in spite of his great sexual desire and
activity? Obviously! Nothing about sexual activity makes one
172
unholy except breaching God’s – not man’s – specific prohibitions. Sex
with more than one partner is not one of those prohibitions.
Will sex with more than one person cause one to fail to fulfill
his/her Divine destiny? Gideon was called and chosen by God to
lead Israel in the defeat of their enemies. Yet Gideon had many
wives. Having sex with others than his first wife had no bearing at
all either on God calling him, or on his faithful, successful fulfillment
of his destiny. He enjoyed sex with many women yet served God
faithfully and was forever enshrined among the great heroes of
faith in Heb. 11:32. Was Gideon a holy man? Absolutely! Did his
sexual enjoyment of several women hinder his relationship with
God or destroy his destiny? Absolutely not!
Abraham is our greatest hero of faith – the example God holds
before us to imitate. But Abraham had sex with his wife’s servant at
his wife’s suggestion. Did God frown upon Sarah for suggesting
such a “vulgar” thing? Did God chastise Abraham for accepting his
wife’s invitation to have sex with Hagar? Not in the least. Abraham
and Sarah both made the mistake of thinking they could help God
fulfill His promise to give them a son, but nowhere does God even
hint that they sinned or were even “indiscreet” in this “affair”
between Abraham and Hagar. Abraham had several unnamed
concubines and had sons by them, (Gen. 25:6). In his sexual
involvement with several women other than Sarah, did Abraham
incur God’s disfavor? Did he fail to meet his Divine destiny? Was
He ever rebuked, or did God’s “anointing” ever leave him?
Absolutely not! Abraham continued throughout his life to be a holy
worshipper and productive servant of God. His sexual behavior
was never a factor in God’s approval of his person or his service.
Can a man be holy, pursue his divine call and keep God’s good
favor, even though he consorts with a prostitute? Samson did. God
never spoke a word of rebuke, warning or correction to Samson
about his pursuit of sexual activity with women other than his wife.
His only problem with God was his betrayal of the secret of his
anointing into enemy hands. This cost him his liberty for awhile yet
at the very end of his life he prayed again for strength, God
answered and his last heroic act destroyed so many Philistine
leaders that it marked the end of their power over Israel. This was
his prophesied destiny. He fulfilled it completely.
Judah visited what he thought was a prostitute, by
propositioning Tamar, his daughter in law. She became pregnant
173
with his child. God never reproached him for it nor ever even
hinted any displeasure with him for this act. Did Judah fail to meet
his Divine destiny because of this sexual encounter? Absolutely
not! Until his death he remained a select servant of God whose
worship and prayers were accepted by a Holy God. Israel’s
Messiah sprang forth from Judah’s lineage.
Jacob had two wives, and enjoyed sex with them both and also
with their personal maids. The “Father of Israel” whose name still
identifies the Jews, was never corrected, rebuked, etc. for having
sex with at least four different women. Did God accept him as a
holy man? Obviously! Was his service to God rewarded by God?
Certainly! Did his sexual relations with several women make him
unholy or render his worship and prayers unacceptable?
Absolutely not!
Note that in these examples as in the many more we have
already given, there is no indication that the original wives fretted
over questions about their husband’s love, fidelity and
commitment to the marriage. These women obviously understood
the nature of sexual desire and they accepted their husband’s desire
for other sexual partners. Let us say it again: If a man desires to
enjoy sex with another partner it does not mean that he no longer
loves his wife. It does not mean that she does not satisfy him. It
does not mean he is tired of her. It does not mean she must “share”
him with another woman. The same holds true if a woman desires
to have sex with other men than her husband. If married people
could see the whole sexual arena from a strictly Biblical vantagepoint
and divest themselves of the religious and cultural baggage
they carry, they would be free of jealousy, fear, suspicion, etc. They
would be free to think about and actually enjoy a wider range of
sexual pleasure with others than their mates. Doing so does not
threaten the marriage bond. It does not threaten love. A marriage
must be built upon love. If it is then the pleasures of diverse sex
will not harm it.
The true Biblical basis of marriage is lifetime commitment to each
other, not sexual exclusivity. Sexual intercourse with another person
implies nothing about that commitment. Adultery in the mind and
in actuality, is either the desire or the actual effort to end a marriage
without Biblical reason. God demands that a man and woman not
attempt to sever their marriage ties unless their mate has been
unfaithful to their original vows. Biblical vows evidently included
174
only that they would remain married for life. If evidence arose that
one mate was attempting to rob the other of his/her property by
severing the marriage bond, it became grounds for divorce by the
innocent party. Jesus makes this the sole basis for approved divorce
and remarriage (Matt. 5:32ff; 19:9ff; Mk. 10:1ff; Lk. 16:18ff). Jesus
was not talking about one mate enjoying sex with someone other
than his/her mate. He was talking about desiring, planning, or
attempting to undo the life long commitment they made to each
other. This is necessarily true because the only appropriate and
Biblically provable definition of “adultery” is “severing the
marriage bond.” Doing so, even in thought, “adulterates” the
marriage covenant, lessens, it, destroys it. “Extra-marital” sex does
not unless vows of sexual exclusivity have been exchanged. In that
case, if the pair desires to do so, they may negate such vows and
make new vows based on more genuinely Biblical truth.
God never voiced displeasure with multiple wives or
concubines. God did demand that when a man married a woman
he remain married to her and never allow her to be thought of as
less than other women in his life. He is commanded to rejoice in the
wife of his youth, (Prov. 5:18), that is, treat her with the honor,
dignity and favor she deserves as his first and most to be cherished
wife. It does not exclude other wives or concubines. It demands
that a man give priority to his relationship with his original wife.
This requires that he not demean her, neglect her, deprive her of
sexual pleasure, etc. It also means that he is not to seek to get rid of
her in order to marry other wives. To do so is adultery.
The specifically female side of this matter is covered in more
detail in our chapter on Adultery. But a few words here are
appropriate. OT restrictions regarding women having sex with
more than one man were never well specified, nor given much
attention. OT perspective deals almost exclusively with males. But
there is enough said about women and sex to enable us to at least
begin thinking about their specific case. The existence of
prostitution is referred to numerous times. But surprisingly there is
no Divine censure of prostitution except in cases of its connection
with idol worship or its connection with adultery. Women like
Rahab for example, were never censured nor commanded to
“repent.” This opens the door, even in the OT, to the possibility of
women enjoying sexual activity with several men. A more detailed
look at prostitution in presented in our chapter on that topic. But
175
the issue of married women and sex as relates to adultery is
significant. As detailed in the chapters on Polygamy, and Adultery,
the reasons married women could not have sex with other men in
the OT relates directly to the prime consideration given to physical
offspring by which tribal lineage was maintained. Purity of family
tree was a matter of supreme importance in Israelite culture
therefore a wife could have sex only with her husband, thereby
ensuring that any child she bore was truly part of the tribal lineage.
Since tribal lineage and inheritance flowed from the male a married
man would not be considered an adulterer if he has sex with
concubines, slaves and prostitutes. The reason for restrictive sex
was removed from the male, because he would not dilute the
family tree by possibly impregnating women other than his wife.
Since this was not a danger for the male there was no “breaking
covenant” for him if he had sex outside the marriage bond. But
either implicitly or explicitly, the Israelite marriage bond required a
woman to be sexually active with her husband alone because the
wife would bring impure “seed” into the lineage if she bore a child
that did not belong to her husband.
As demonstrated in the chapter on Adultery, Jesus and NT
authors bring women out of this unequal state and give them equal
status with man, across the board, including liberty in sex and
marriage. Woman could now exercise the same privileges as the
man. Since polygamy was never outlawed by God and existed in
the NT church without a word of discouragement or correction, the
equal status of the woman makes it possible for her now to have
more than one husband/sexual partner. As was true in the OT for
the male, a woman with equal status can now have sex with more
than one man because doing so does not carry the same
genealogical importance as in OT Israel. In other words, every
reason for a woman having sex with only her husband has been
removed. Add to this her now equal status with him and we have the
door open for her to enjoy as much freedom in sexual activity as
was once preserved for males only. “Adultery” is not a sex act; it is
intention to sever, or actually severing, the marriage relationship. A
woman enjoying sex with men other than her husband no more
constitutes “adultery” now, than does a man in either OT or NT,
enjoying sex with women other than his wife. We could rid
ourselves of the burden we carry on this issue if we could see two
things:
176
[1. Sex is designed by God for enjoyment as much as for
procreation. In God’s eyes sex is a great blessing to His kids. He
does not hover over us daring us to “have fun” with sex. He
does not watch all our sexual thoughts and punish us when we
have a sex thought about someone other than our spouse. Nor
does He watch us like a hawk to see if we dare try to enjoy sex
with anyone other than our mate. As any Creator would do,
God watches humans enjoy this activity and rejoices that “it
works” just the way He intended. As long as we do not abuse
other people, and fully consider their rights and feelings, God
has no laws against sexual variety. As we may enjoy a great
variety of food we may enjoy variety in sex. As we may
appreciate many works of art, fine works of architecture,
beautiful automobiles, etc. so may we appreciate in a sexual
way, beautiful women and men. There is no justifiable reason
for jealousy, feeling threatened, possessiveness, etc. Mature men
and women can, if they will work at it, come to a place of
mature understanding on this subject and begin to truly
appreciate and enjoy what an incredible blessing sex is to
mankind without the guilt and shame that shackles and even
ruins so many lives today.
[2. God’s laws against married people having sex with others
than their spouses (given only to the woman) were God’s way of
ensuring that Israelite lineage would be preserved and a pure line of
descent would be in place for the coming of Messiah. Men having sex
with other women would in no way threaten this lineage
therefore no restriction applied to the man. When we remove
this factor we no longer have a valid reason for the restrictions
placed on wives.
Nothing about Jesus’ death on the cross has changed these two
things. The coming of Messiah, His redemptive work and the birth
of the church, has in no sense and to no degree suddenly made sex
“dirty.” Just as holy people of God enjoyed sex in the OT so may
they do so now, but with the difference that women are now free to
enjoy sexual variety along with men. God’s creation of sex has not
been made unholy by the death of Jesus. In our chapter on God’s
Unchanging Nature we demonstrate that what God approves or
177
disapproves flows from His nature. He does not change His mind
about what is and is not sin. The ministry of Jesus in no way
changed God’s attitude about sex, making a formerly acceptable
thing now forbidden. The only true effects on sexual practice, in the
ministry and teaching of Jesus, are that He provides true
forgiveness for those who repent of forbidden sex. And He liberates
women from their previous sexual confinement. Just as Jesus
eliminated no longer applicable Jewish ceremonial rituals He also
eliminated no longer applicable sex laws for married women.
Enjoyment of sexual relations with more than one person has
never been an essential issue with God. His only concern was
protection of the people involved. If we will exercise true concern
and respect for anyone with whom we contemplate enjoying sex
and if we refuse to participate in forbidden activities, we are
otherwise free to enjoy this wonderful pleasure.
178
CHAPTER EIGHT
FORNICATION part 2
Scripture References:
We present here, some Scripture references that do not
automatically fit a specific category. Though many would fit in the
general category of fornication, there are some interesting
observations to make apart from that categorization.
Included among the examples of great faith people in Hebrews 11,
are these.
Abraham – polygamist and concubinist - no divine censure
anywhere.
Isaac – polygamist and concubinist - no divine censure
anywhere.
Jacob – polygamist and concubinist - no divine censure
anywhere.
Gideon – polygamist and concubinist - no divine censure
anywhere.
Samson – polygamist and concubinist - no divine censure
anywhere.
David – polygamist and concubinist - no divine censure
anywhere.
Now, connect the foregoing list of mighty men of faith, with this
statement from the next chapter; “Do not be fornicators,” (Heb.
12:16).
In the previous chapter of Hebrews the writer names several
polygamists and concubinists as history’s great examples of
faithfulness to God. Now he condemns “fornication.” What then
can be more obvious than that, in this inspired NT author’s mind,
polygamy and concubinism are in no sense “fornication.”
“Fornication” is a generic word that describes the practice of any sex
act God has forbidden. God never forbade polygamy or
concubinism, in OT or NT, therefore for a man to have many wives
and concubines does not make him guilty – then or now – of
fornication.
Let us add to this, the following verse: “Let marriage be held in
honor among all, and let and the marriage bed undefiled; for fornicators
and adulterers God will judge,” (Heb. 13:4). Again, the connection of
179
this verse with the general context of Heb. 11 and 12:16 proves also
that polygamy and concubinism are in no sense “fornication” or
“adultery.” The reason for this is because “adultery” is “separation
of married mates,” “breaking of marriage bonds.” In polygamy and
concubinism there is no breaking of marriage bonds even though
many women may be committed to one man. The use of both
“adultery” and “fornication” helps us get the point that “adultery” is
not a sex act per se. “Fornication” is a generic word that includes all
forbidden sex acts. “Adultery” simply refers to whatever breaks the
marriage bond. Either fornication or adultery “dishonors” marriage
and “defiles” the marriage bed: adultery dishonors marriage by
breaking its bonds; fornication defiles the bed by bringing into the
bed forbidden acts such as incest, rape, bestiality. The writer of
Hebrews understands the nature of both adultery and fornication.
And he is perfectly familiar with the sexual life-style of those great
faith people he names. It is important for him to warn us against
fornication and adultery yet no mention is made of the multiple sex
relationships of these faithful men. The conclusion is obvious: even
in NT times multiple sex relationships were not viewed as either
adultery or fornication. If they were, we have absolutely no way to
learn it because no NT writer tells us that God changed His mind
about polygamy and concubinism, now condemning what He once
allowed.
The list above from Heb. 11 designates these most famous, most
blessed and most anointed men in the history of the church as
pillars upon which the church rests. They were blessed by God to be
close to Him and to fulfill their life’s calling even though every one
of them had multiple wives and concubines. This illustrates again
that God has never been concerned about how many people one
has sex with. The sex act is neither moral nor immoral. It is a
biological function in humans exactly as it is in animals. What God is
concerned about is how we relate to those with whom we have sex.
Any disregard for their personal dignity, refusal of responsibility
for any consequences that result from sexual relations or contempt
for the exclusive right of a person to control their personal
sexuality, is forbidden. But within the confines of that principle there is
no law against sexual relations with many partners. As long as
Scripture stands the above list alone proves our point. The many
other Scriptures and categories we have studied in this series
makes that statement, in our mind, beyond doubt.
180
This principle being true, there is no reason for humans to bear
guilt or shame at the desire for wider sexual experience any more
than they desire “more” of many other things in life. No one thinks
that having one house eliminates the validity of the desire for
another one, perhaps a “summer cottage.” Having one automobile
does not make it invalid to desire another. Enjoying one kind of
meat does not make it excessive to desire other kinds. So on and on
we could illustrate this principle. People automatically put sex in a
totally exclusive category then interpret the Bible in light of their
preconceptions. What they readily accept in virtually all other
aspects of life they reject in regard to sex. Yet the Bible does not do
so. God treats sex as He treats any other human function. He made
some laws about eliminating bodily waste because of the way it
affects other people. He made laws concerning eating in order to
prevent wasteful, debilitating abuse of a good thing. He regulated
wine drinking to prevent drunkenness. He made laws against
“coveting” other people’s property to prevent stealing. In the same
way God made some laws concerning sex to protect people’s
dignity and personal property rights. Because sex is more personal
than virtually any other act it requires special laws. But those laws
all fall within the category of protecting the other person with whom
we may enjoy sex. Each participant in sex must be more concerned
about the other person’s well being and dignity than about a purely
selfish physical pleasure. As long as the other person is fully
regarded and respected God’s laws allow for much sexual variety.
Engaging in sexual activity with more than one partner, even if
married, is allowed for both husband and wife if they are both
willing to grant such liberty to each other, because doing so with
mutual agreement constitutes neither breaking the marriage bond
(“adultery”), nor “fornication” (unlawful sex). In the OT a husband
could have unlimited sex partners (cf. Solomon’s 1,000 wives and
concubines). The wife could not have more than one partner
because this threatened the tribal lineage of her husband. But with
the NT liberation of woman and her equality with man, a wife now
shares with her husband full sexual liberty. In matters of multiple
sexual relations nothing has changed from OT to NT except that
what once was a privilege reserved only for men, is now available
to women also.
Many other generic Scriptures list sexual sin:
181
Gentiles must keep themselves from fornication, (Acts 15:20, 29;
21:25).
Gentiles were given over to unrighteousness and fornication,
(Rom. 1:29; 13:13).
“A man has his father’s wife” which is “fornication (1 Cor. 5:1f).
This is incest, a forbidden act.
“Do not associate with fornicators… who are called brothers,” (1 Cor.
5:9, 11).
“Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor
homosexuals…shall inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Cor. 6:9-10). Trying
to undo the mess made by translating the Greek word arsenokoites
as “homosexual” is too much to undertake here. Obtain our book
entitled God Is Not A Homophobe for a thorough examination of
what this word means. We will be content here to state that any
reference the Bible actually makes to homosexuality is nothing at
all like what we mean when we use that word today.
“Shall I take away the members of Christ and make them members of a
harlot? May it never be! Or do you not know that the one who joins
himself to a harlot is one body with her?…Flee immorality…the immoral
man sins against his own body,” (1 Cor. 6:15-18). This statement
reflects Corinth’s pagan culture, complete with “sex-as-worship” to
idols, and temple prostitutes. Paul’s question is about the propriety
of joining oneself to pagan idol worship by having sex with a
temple prostitute. One cannot do that and at the same time remain
loyal to the one true God, who alone is to be worshipped. Such acts
make his body a device for idol worship and is a sin against his
body and therefore also a sin against the Holy Spirit who inhabits
the body of a Christian; “your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit,”
(vs.19).
Israelites engaged in pagan revelry, “fornication,” and were
punished, (1 Cor. 10:7-8).
Do not use freedom in Christ to indulge sinful nature, (Gal.
5:13). Live by the Spirit and you will not indulge that nature, (vs.
16). Acts of sinful nature are “fornication, impurity, lasciviousness,”
(vs. 19). Those who belong to Christ have crucified the evil nature
with its lusts & desires, (Gal. 5:24).
Once we all gratified the cravings of our sinful nature, (Eph.
2:3). Gentiles have given themselves over to sensuality to indulge in
every kind of impurity and continually lust for more. (Eph. 4:19).
Among saints there must not be even a hint of fornication, or
182
impurity, (Eph. 5:3). No fornicator or impure person can inherit the
kingdom of God, (Eph. 5:5).
Human rules have no power against fleshly indulgence, (Col.
2:23). This being true, if we find what we must admit are human
rules relating to sexual matters, we can safely disregard them. Put
to death fornication, uncleanness, lust, evil desires, (Col. 3:5).
God wills that we avoid fornication, that each one learns to
control his own body, (1 Thess. 4:3,4). God requires that we learn
sexual self-control. Sexual excess is lasciviousness or concupicence.
The law is for adulterers and “sodomites,” (1 Tim. 1:9, 10).
Again, this translation is so unfortunate because arsenokoites has
nothing at all to do with Sodom, or anything that happened in
Sodom. See our book entitled God Is Not A Homophobe for details.
Flee youthful lusts, (2 Tim. 2:22; 1 Pet. 2:11).
We once walked in “lewdness” (1 Pet. 4:3). This is lasciviousness;
excessive, shameless disregard for God’s sex laws or public morals.
By God’s promises we escaped the depravity that is in the world
through lust, (2 Pet. 1:4). God will judge those who “walk according
to the flesh in the lusts of uncleanness,” (2 Pet. 2:9). They allure
through lusts of the flesh, through lewdness, those who are saved,
(2 Pet. 2:18).
“Lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes…is not of the Father, but of the
world,” (1 Jn. 2:16). See the chapter on Lust of the Eyes for
discussion of the meaning of this phrase.
Some have turned the grace of God into “lewdness,” (Jude 4).
Angels “left their proper sphere…just like Sodom and Gomorrah,
gave themselves to fornication, and strange flesh” and became subject to
God’s wrath, (Jude 6, 7). This verse is discussed in detail in our
book entitled God Is Not A Homophobe. But we remark here briefly
that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is said here to be in going
after “strange” flesh. It is so intriguing to learn that the word Jude
used here is heteras, the word from which we derive our word
“heteros” as in “hetero-sexual!” The sin here is not “homo” flesh,
but “hetero” flesh. Jude thought the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah
involved some sort of illegitimate “hetero” sexual pursuit!!!
At Pergamos some taught people to “commit fornication,” (Rev.
2:14-16). They must “repent.” Thyatira “tolerates Jezebel” who
“seduces My servants to commit fornication, …I gave her time to repent
of her fornication, but she would not…I will cast her…and those who
183
commit adultery with her, into great tribulation unless they repent,”
(Rev. 2:20-22).
At the sounding of the 6th trumpet, men “did not repent of their
fornication…” (Rev. 9:21).
144,000 saints “were not defiled with women, for they are virgins,”
(Rev. 14:1-4).
“Babylon is fallen…she made all nations drink of her fornication,”
(Rev. 14:8).
The “great harlot” is judged, with whom kings of the earth
committed fornication, and earth’s inhabitants were made drunk
with wine of her fornication, (Rev. 17:1-2). Her cup was “filled with
the filthiness of her fornication,” (vs. 4).
All nations have drunk the wine of the wrath of Babylon’s
fornication. Earth’s kings have committed fornication with her; the
kings of earth who commit fornication with her will mourn when
she is destroyed, (Rev. 18:3, 9).
God judged the great harlot who corrupted the earth with her
fornication, (Rev. 19:2).
The “… fornicators …have their part in the lake of fire…” (Rev.
21:8).
Outside the heavenly city are “dogs, sorcerers and fornicators,”
(Rev. 22:15).
COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS:
God’s laws against specific sex practices relate to proper regard
for other people’s personal property and their exclusive rights to
their own sexuality. All God’s laws against sex have to do with this
aspect. It is not the sex act that God is concerned about. It is how
we relate to other people through this act. Where people’s personal
feelings, personal conscience, personal “property,” that is their
body, is respected there are virtually no rules against sexual
enjoyment. There is nothing inherently either moral or immoral
about the human sex act. Sexual activity has no essential holy or
unholy quality to it. Anything moral/immoral or holy/unholy as
associated with sex, comes as direct revelation in the form of God’s
prohibitions against all sex acts that encroach upon other people’s
rights to their own body, their own personal feelings, etc. In the
absence of a direct prohibition there is freedom to explore the full
range of sexual enjoyment that remains, inhibited only by the
184
requirement of love for one’s neighbor. That range is much broader
than most of us thought possible.
Once people learn this fact there is no reason for them to feel
any reluctance about going forward in their sexual exploration. The
fact that most sexual experience has been taboo all our lives can
cease to have any negative effect on our enjoyment of all of life that
God makes available to us. There is more to be enjoyed than a
husband and wife having intercourse in the missionary position.
For those who can see the truths we have tried to bring out of
Scripture, and illustrate, we believe that:
Husbands and wives can be free to explore sex with each
other in as many ways as they both desire. Again, concern and
love for the other person will prohibit the husband from
demanding that his wife submit to something she does not want
to do. On the other hand, she should be willing to discuss the
activity with her husband and be willing to be as open as
possible to sexual activities that are not painful or degrading to
her.
They may also be free to enjoy sex with other partners as
long as they are both agreed to the plan. Neither husbands nor
wives should feel threatened that their mate desires to have sex
with others. Doing so does not constitute adultery. Adultery is
breaking or seeking to break the marriage union, ridding oneself of
one’s own mate, or trying to break up another’s marriage. Any
act done with that intention or having that result, is adultery and is
forbidden. But the simple act of sex with another person is not
adultery. Let us say it again: Adultery is not a sex act! If both
mates can see this and decide to move forward in their
relationship with this information then new, exciting,
pleasurable doors open for them both. And neither should feel
any guilt, shame or jealousy. True marriage is based on God’s
requirement that a man and woman make a commitment to
remain together for life. Sexual activity with another person
does not change that commitment in any way.
Neither husbands or wives should feel threatened that their
mate desires to attend a show where either male or female
shows their body for paying customers. A “strip show,” in
Biblical terms, is neither moral nor immoral, for the reason that
nakedness is neither moral or immoral, nor is sexual arousal either
moral or immoral. For one to dance naked today, even for
185
paying customers, is no more immoral than it was for the
Shulammite girl to dance naked for admiring onlookers in the
Song of Solomon, or for David to dance virtually naked before
the men and women thronging the road to Jerusalem. The
dancer is not immoral nor is the audience. It becomes a moral
issue only when the dancing is done to entice to sin via adultery,
incest, rape, etc. To become sexually excited while watching a
nude dance, or viewing nude photos is not immoral. Sexual
excitement, regardless of the source or cause, is neither moral
nor immoral. It becomes immoral only when that excitement
comes from illegitimate sources, (depictions of forbidden
activity) or leads to illegitimate action (anything God has
prohibited).
Masturbation is innocent. No man or woman should feel the
least troubled by the desire or practice of personal sexual
pleasure. Parents should not discourage their children from
masturbation but should explain to them that it is a legitimate
enjoyment of personal pleasure. If the situation arises where a
child plays with his/her genitals in public, he/she can be gently
taught to save that kind of play for the privacy of their own
home when strangers are not present. And there is no need to
confine your child’s masturbation to the bedroom or bathroom.
The attempt to confine it to secrecy re-enforces the faulty
lessons we need to un-teach. In a family’s home, parents and
children ought not have any reluctance about their bodies.
Families may and we think should practice nudity much of the
time when they are alone together at home. And when little
Johnny or young Susie manipulate their sexual organs in the
presence of the other members of the family they should not be
disciplined or discouraged. Indeed there is good argument for
establishing an “open door” policy in the household. That is,
children should not be taught to hide their sexuality when at
home. This means that parents should keep an “open door”
during their own sexual activities. There is no evidence that if
children watch their parents having intercourse, it will warp
their minds or otherwise harm them. When parents desire
privacy from time to time they can farm the kids out and spend
time alone. But to close and lock their doors when they enjoy
sex tells the children that there must be something wrong with
sex after all else mom and dad would not be hiding it. To send
186
children to the bathroom or bedroom, behind closed doors to
masturbate, tells them the same thing.
The author of these studies will always remember
thankfully, an event in his home, when as a teenager he was
awakened during the night to the unmistakable sounds of
sexual activity coming from his parent’s room just a feet away.
This activity quite naturally excited him sexually and he
masturbated while he listened. The following day he mustered
the courage to ask his mother about the activity of the previous
night. As they talked, his mother explained that there was
nothing to be ashamed of at being sexually excited by the
incident. Questions about a woman’s body, her genitals, her
breasts, etc. were asked and she answered very casually and
non-threateningly. He risked telling her that he was
experiencing an erection even as they talked and she very
kindly explained that the “power of suggestion” was natural
and that its effect in causing an erection was nothing to be
ashamed of. She asked if he had masturbated before and when
he admitted that he had she simply encouraged him to control
the desire to masturbate so that it did not become a “habit.” In
terms of prevailing standards such advice was truly “liberal.”
This author is so thankful that his mother did not heap guilt
upon him but rather gave him liberty to enjoy an innocent and
most natural activity.
What evidence exists, suggests that sex education in Biblical
times was done in a family environment. Children learned
about sex by observation in the home and no doubt shared their
information among their friends. Ancient documents prove that
communities were small, self-contained units consisting of
houses clustered together within a walled city, town or village.
Everyone lived packed together with large families occupying
small houses. They had no plumbing, toilets or baths as we have
and there was virtually no privacy. For the common populace,
most homes consisted either of one large room or at most two
rooms, one serving as kitchen/dining area. Except for wealthy
families with large houses, adults and children lived, ate and
slept together. Animals generally were brought in at night, and
in the daytime were corralled close to the house in small yards
with minimal fences. Children witnessed animals mating both
indoors and outdoors. Bowel and bladder elimination was not a
187
private matter as males especially would commonly “piss
against the wall,” (1 Sam. 25:22, 34; 1 Kg. 14:10; 16:11; 21:21; 2 Kg.
9:8) exposing their genitals to view by whomever was near.
Bathing was done in the open room in a tub set in the floor
for the purpose and adults and children became accustomed to
seeing each other’s sex organs and thinking nothing of it.
Sleeping quarters were cramped and boys and girls generally
slept together, making it easy to observe the difference in their
genitals and to experience sexual excitement as they “experimented”
with each other. When parents copulated, children
couldn’t help hearing the sounds and witnessing the act, even
when it was done in the dimness of moonlit nights. Separated
from parents by only a few feet children easily and frequently
awoke to the sounds of bed bouncing, heavy breathing,
moaning and cries of sexual pleasure. Parents did not have the
luxury of privacy. Children who were roused out of sleep
would, in curiosity, go to the bed of their parents to see what all
the racket was about. When such activity began to pique their
own sexual urges it was no more unusual for them to
masturbate than for them to witness their parents having sex.
Masturbation itself was never an issue in ancient societies. As
children grew together, experimentation with and manipulation
of their own and each other’s sex organs was as natural as any
other physical activity. Masturbation was as normal for children
as bowel movements. We have no indication that children were
discouraged from masturbation or that they were required to do
it only in private. They could not practice private masturbation
any more than they could privately bathe, or than their parents
could have sex in private. Sexual activity running the gamut
from petting to full scale intercourse with all the accompanying
family intimacies could not be hidden from the growing child. It
was a natural part of their intellectual, social and sexual
development. In this environment, nudity was commonplace,
both parents and children being uninhibited about their naked
bodies, sex organs and their function, and feeling no shame
about being seen by other family members.
There is no indication in Scripture, that God considered such
conditions to be unsatisfactory, uncivilized, etc. We shudder at
such conditions only because we have learned to think of sex as
188
basically unwholesome, and something that must at all costs be
kept hidden.
Parents are role models for their children in sex as with
everything else. The way a father relates to a mother teaches
children how men and women interact. If in the home there is
little or no talk about sex, or if what talk is done consists of
negative references and warnings; or occurs in homes where the
body is always hidden and children’s hands are spanked when
they feel their sex organs and all talk of sexual function is taboo,
then children learn that sex is dirty, shameful and vulgar. They
learn to fear sex and hide it. When they reach adulthood and
marry they are frequently unable to experience the joy of sexual
intimacy with their partner. What sex they have is hidden,
secretive, in the dark. In such conditions a woman who
manifests a positive desire for sex is considered a “hussy,”
“brazen,” a “Lolita,” etc. So many women in our culture cannot
truly enjoy sex because their upbringing enslaves them to the
“dirty sex” mentality. Growing out of that mentality is difficult
at best and sometimes impossible. We believe the only truly
workable prescription for this miserable condition is to return to
the true Biblical attitude toward sex as a wholesome, Godcreated,
pleasurable and to be sought after activity. If we can see
that God gave sex to His kids for their enjoyment, then we can
come out of our shells and receive it as the gift and Godordained
blessing it is.
Let the reader remember that we have gotten ourselves into
our sexual mess because of wrong information and human
rules. If we went strictly by Scripture as it is actually written,
there would be no negative feelings about the foregoing
comments. For the sake of grown up and child alike we need to
work at getting back to a sane and Biblical perspective on sex. If
we can do that sex will be many times more pleasurable and
many times less guilt inducing.
An action does not have to have an example in Scripture, for it to
be permissible. Most of the things we do have no example in
Scripture. We have freedom to do them because they are in
harmony with principles of Scriptures. Life is governed by
principles. A specific example of behavior that God allows makes it
permissible for others. A general principle will allow all activity that
falls within that principle even though it is not specified. In all
189
cases God legislates against the behavior He forbids. What He does not
forbid is allowed. This does not mean He advocates or encourages
everything else but it does mean that non-forbidden practices are
allowed for those whose personal choice is to engage in them.
This study on sex is radical departure from conventional
religious thought. But “salvation by grace alone” was a radical
departure in salvation theology and experience. Likewise healing,
tongues, etc. is radical in the area of theology and Christian service.
Also “spiritual warfare” over cities and nations is a radical
departure in the area of kingdom living. And dancing, raising
hands, shouting, etc. is radical departure in the area of worship.
Women in ministry is a radical departure in the area of church
leadership. Radical does not equal wrong. Radical often brings sanity
back to a culture or church that has been taken down the path of
legalism. Conventional religious thought is radically different from
Biblical thought in many areas, especially concerning church
growth. Tremendous tragedy has been visited upon the church
because men have grown predominantly interested in the number of
people rather than in the strength of the people who make it up.
Consequently the church has been reduced to no more than a
religious social club. Conventional church thought in this area
needs desperately to be abandoned.
So it is on the subject of sex. People wear shackles and blinders
God never placed upon them because the church has followed the
human tendency – oft repeated through the ages – of taking what
God says, then adding human interpretation to it, altering and
augmenting it until we have something totally different from what
God said in Scripture. Fundamentally, people are no more
restricted in sexual practice than are animals. God requires of
humans that we honor and respect relationships with each other
and do nothing that compromises the property rights of others,
especially their rights to sole control over their bodies and their
sexuality. Within the boundaries that honor God’s law on strictly
forbidden practices, plus respect for and responsibility for others,
humans are free to enjoy sex in many variations. Other humans do
not have sufficient wisdom or authority to steal this blessing
through religious dictatorship.
Being stigmatized by others because of personal choices that
range outside the religious, cultural or social mainstream does not
make those choices wrong. Labels of “pervert,” “hedonist,”
190
“voluptuary,” “sex addict,” etc. should not carry enough weight in
our minds as to scare us from enjoying activities that are innocent
as defined by Biblical standards. Each individual must weigh the
risks of being “caught” in the act of enjoying sexuality in ways of
which others do not approve. Then decisions should be made on
the strength of one’s personal desire for God-approved activity as
weighed against possible public censure. Many people cannot
escape the grip of fear of being “caught.” They imagine every
possible scenario that might “expose” them. And even if the
likelihood of “exposure” is minimal some people cannot walk in
liberty to enjoy their own choices because they are bound by fear.
This is sad. However we encourage even those people to risk as
much as they dare. We encourage them to walk as far into sexual
liberty as they may. As they take even a few steps we believe they
will discover their “risk level” rising and they will be able to go
further and further as they grow into their own persons, unbound
by the unfounded opinions of others. The issue is more
fundamental than the specific issue of sexual liberty. It is the cause
of personal liberty itself for which we contend. No being in the
universe except God has the authority or power to circumscribe
human behavior. Where He refuses to do so, no human agency has
the right to do so. Even civil law is drawn from the moral law
originally codified in the Bible. Responsible civil law merely makes
mandatory in society the observance of laws that prevent
encroachment upon the property, rights and welfare of others.
In all areas where God has not legislated, humans are free to
experience what they choose. No human is obligated to honor the
decisions, ideas or desires of other humans. No human can grow to
their potential intellectually, psychologically, socially or sexually
until they rid themselves of all merely human restraints and pursue
the freedom to learn, experiment and experience what interests
them. One who will not do this will forever remain the prisoner of
other people’s ignorance and prejudice. Let us be free. Let us take
advantage of a world of possibilities for all parts of our life. Let us
reject the attempts of all people who seek to bind us to their
personal opinions. We live in bondage to others only if we choose to
do so. Likewise we will walk in freedom only if we choose freedom.
191
CHAPTER NINE
PROSTITUTION
In this country prostitutes are outcasts. They are considered the
dregs of society. They receive no sympathy or mercy and no
attempt is made to understand who they are and why they pursue
such a “wretched” (we think) lifestyle. In our society no one
hesitates to condemn those who make commerce of their sexuality
and we think it outrageous that anyone would think to question
our collective attitude. But surely those who follow Christ must
remember that He accepted a precious gift from a prostitute, and
when his host reacted negatively to this Jesus rebuked him for it,
(Lk. 7:36-50). He did not recoil from her touch and He did not
rebuke, chastise or correct her. With profound sympathy He
ministered acceptance to her thus setting for us the example we
must strive to imitate.
God loved the world, with its worst, with such intensity that He
sent Jesus to die for us all. Do we not owe it to each other to grant
sufficient grace to those we consider the “worst” among us, to be
certain that we do not marginalize an entire segment of society
without first examining all the Biblical evidence pertaining to their
lifestyle? Can we at least entertain the possibility that we might not
know exactly what the Bible teaches about prostitution and
prostitutes? Those who believe that they are infallibly correct on
this topic should not waste time reading further. For the rest of us
the following study may be eye-opening. As always we begin by
looking at the exact meaning of the words we will be considering.
Definitions:
Heb. zana.
“to commit adultery; fig. to commit idolatry, unfaithful,
whore(dom) (Israel being God’s spouse). (Strong’s #2181, 2, 3, 4)
“sacred person, devotee by prostitution to licentious idolatry;
sodomite, unclean, consecrated thing, holiness, sanctuary.”
(Strong’s #6945, 6, 7, 8)
“harlotry, idolatry, fornication, whoredom.” (Strong’s #8457)
192
Gk. porneia, fornication; porne, (fem.) a fornicator; pornos, (masc.) a
fornicator.
“to be utterly unchaste, given over to fornication.” (Strong’s #1608)
“adultery, incest; fig. idolatry; fornication.”
“lit. to indulge unlawful lust (of either sex), or fig. practice idolatry;
commit fornication.” “a strumpet; fig. an idolater.” “debauchee
(libertine), fornicator, whoremonger.” (Strong’s #4202, 03, 04, 05)
Scripture references:
Judah’s wife is dead and on one of his travels he mistakes his
daughter in law, Tamar for a “harlot” and buys sex with her. Her
price is a kid from Judah’s flock, (Gen. 38:12-18). Judah thus sexes a
“prostitute” who is actually his daughter in law. Tamar is found
pregnant & Judah commands death, (vs. 24), however because she
possesses the evidence to prove that the child is his, she is set free.
Why is it OK for Judah to have sex with a prostitute but wrong for
her to be a prostitute? It is because she was already “promised” or
“betrothed” to her brother in law even though she had not yet been
actually given to him as wife. So it was not the prostitution that
brought Judah’s wrath. It was the fact that Tamar was technically
“married.” Being with child by someone other than her “betrothed”
makes her technically an adulteress. This is the reason for the death
penalty.
Judah’s possessions in her hand saves her life, (vs. 25, 26).
Nothing in the text suggests that either God or man saw anything
unusual in Judah’s propositioning a prostitute. If she had not been
betrothed there would have been no condemnation of her because,
as we shall see prostitution is not condemned by God except when
it involves a married woman, thus adultery. We must emphasize the
main point here: Judah was a righteous man, one of the 12 sons of
Jacob, the primary progenitor of Messiah. If his action with a
prostitute had been truly reprehensible, do we think God would
have said and done nothing in the way of correction? Consorting
with a prostitute was simply accepted. Judah experienced nothing
more negative that the embarrassment of having failed to keep his
promise to give her to his son.
Once again we refer to the “law of first mention.” Here for the
first time in Scripture we encounter the act of prostitution. But not
one word is said to indicate that God found it problematic. And He
did nothing to correct the situation even though it involved one of
193
His faithful servants. Surely this reveals much more about God’s
attitude toward this practice than we ever thought might be true.
The Israelites are commanded to not make your daughters
“harlots” lest the land become “lewd.” (Lev. 19:29). The prohibition
here is against fathers selling their daughters in prostitution, like
the nations around them. There is a difference between a woman
freely choosing prostitution, versus a father making her a prostitute.
The principle of self-possession prohibits even parents from
stripping their children of inherent rights to their physical beings,
including their sexuality. This is one of the reasons for prohibiting
incest.
Do not play the harlot after Molech; do not play the harlot with
mediums and spiritists, (Lev. 20:2-6). Again, a specific context is
given for this prohibition. Prostitution as part of pagan idol
worship was common in the Canaanite culture surrounding Israel.
This law is not against prostitution per se, but of its use in worship
to false gods. If we remove the specific reason for the prohibition,
and we also remove the prohibition.
A priest must not marry a harlot or divorcee, (Lev. 21:7, 14). The
implication is that The Israelite leaders knew such women existed
in their midst yet there is no condemnation of them, nor any
command of legal action to be taken against them. In Israel,
prostitution was legal. Their civil law, given by God Himself,
allowed this practice by virtue of not legislating against it. Get this: no
Biblical law prohibits prostitution as such. All prohibitions relate to
abuses of the act such as a father forcing it upon his daughter, or its
use in pagan worship. These prohibitions under special
circumstances do not prohibit prostitution outright any more than
laws against heterosexual rape prohibit heterosexual sex.
If a priest’s daughter prostitutes she is to be burned with fire,
(Lev. 21:9). It is only the connection of her being a priest’s daughter
that brings this punishment. God’s concern was to eliminate sexual
practice from all worship so that Israel would not be like the
nations around them who used cult prostitutes in their religious
services. This law related to religious harlotry, which is sex used in
worship of pagan gods. The danger was in possibly contaminating
Israel’s worship & Levitical ritual by potential idolatrous practices
http://inkaboutit4u.com/?p=Book_Divine_Sex_FREE_Online_Part_2_of_4
Pages 66 - 193
Perhaps porneia, a general word for any unlawful sexual
intercourse, may here (Mt. 5:32; 19:9) refer only to cases where
marriage itself was discovered to be illegal because of
consanguinity.
Through divorce and remarriage a man can commit adultery
against his wife (Mk. 10:11). Similarly Jesus’ extension of what
constitutes adultery (Mt. 5:27-28) shifts the focus away from a
man’s rights over his wife, to the mental attitude of one who even
entertains the thought of adultery.”
Eerdman’s Bible Dictionary, p.693, 694.
“The marital ideal (as) laid down in Gen. 2:24, established
monogamy as a working principle for mankind. Once the fall
occurred, the wife was placed in a subordinate position and
immediately was vulnerable to exploitation, one form of which was
polygamy. This type of marital relationship occurred under a
variety of circumstances. Women captured in battle (Dt. 21:10-14)
became part of the victor’s spoils. While some women were taken
as wives, others were reduced to brutal concubinage, ministering to
the captor’s lusts while their legal wives bore the legitimate family
offspring. Women who found themselves serving as slaves for
other reasons frequently became the object of sexual exploitation in
households by men who regarded them as inferior wives.
By the Mosaic period polygamy was being legislated for as
though it was a current social institution (Dt. 21:15-18). King David
was unashamedly polygamous as was Solomon. One form of
polygamy was (actually) provided for in the Law. This was the
marriage knows as the “Levirate”, and was apparently sanctioned
in the interests of endogamous marriage and the continuation of
the family line. Levirate marriage (Dt. 25:5-10) provided that a
deceased man’s brother should take the widow as his wife and
raise a family to perpetuate his brother’s name and keep inherited
land in the family. Levirate marriage seems to contravene the
legislation in prohibiting marriage with one’s brother’s wife (Lev.
18:16; 20-21), but in other respects was a humane way of dealing
with what was frequently the desperate plight of widows by
keeping them within the family and tribe.
There are thus numerous reasons for the rise of polygamy
which, apart from sensuous considerations, included the need to
maintain endogamous marriages, desire to increase the Israelite
67
population, necessity for providing for destitute widows in order to
avoid slavery, prostitution and the like, and maintaining the
nation’s work force. These factors notwithstanding, the ideal
Hebrew marriage continued to be monogamous, despite the
examples set to the contrary by royalty.
The NT teachings on marriage presupposed monogamy. While
polygamy was tolerated among the rich and powerful, it was
recognized as a violation of that covenantal fidelity that God
demanded of Israel His bride, and that Christ also demanded of the
church (2 Cor. 11:2)
– ISBE, vol. 3, p. 901 –
“From Gen. 2:24 we may evolve the following principles:
….(3)Monogamy as the original law of marriage. In the patriarchal
age polygamy prevailed but to a great extent divested of the
degradation which in modern times attaches to that practice. The
Mosaic law discouraged polygamy.
Our Lord and His apostles re-established the integrity and
sanctity of the marriage bond by the following measures: (1) by the
confirmation of the original charter of marriage as the basis upon
which all regulations were to be framed, Mt. 19:4,5; (2) by the
restriction of divorce to the case of fornication, and the prohibition
of remarriage in all persons divorced on improper grounds, Mt.
5:32; 19:9; Rom. 7:3; 1 Cor. 7:10,11; (3) by the enforcement of moral
purity generally, Heb. 13:4, and especially by the formal
condemnation of fornication, Acts 15:20.”
– Smith’s Bible Dictionary, p.382 –
Our observations:
In spite of these emphatic statements that monogamy was the
original law of marriage, there is no possibility of demonstrating
that premise from Scripture. All we can say for certain about Gen.
2:24 is that God originated human life on this earth by creating only
one of each sex. The Bible does not say that He did so “because it
was His will that one man and one woman be married for life,
excluding all others.” If that was God’s intention, He did not say so.
And when men began to practice polygamy there was never a
single word from God to correct the practice. His most faithful
servants, and those whom He chose to be the fountainhead of blessing for
68
humanity for the rest of human history, practiced polygamy and
concubinage. Yet, as zealous as Jehovah is for righteousness, holiness
and truth, He never corrected these who were to serve forever as
the prime examples of faith and obedience. They all heard His
voice; they all love His Law; they all were obedient to His
commands. If God was displeased with their many wives and
concubines, why did He not say so and correct it at the outset of
human history so that it would not flourish and become common
practice? And if we declare that God was displeased with
polygamy, on what basis do we do so? God doesn’t indicate such
displeasure in any way. And He most certainly makes no statement
to the effect that monogamy is His will for all men forever. Such
ideas are not derived from Scripture. They are placed upon Scripture
in spite of actual contrary evidence.
After Lamech’s polygamy and after the flood, as soon as Noah
and family exited the ark, God commanded them to avoid eating
blood, Gen. 9:4, and established the death penalty for murder,
(Gen. 9:6). Since the whole motive for the flood was to cleanse the
earth of sin and give mankind a brand new start, then why did God
not also command Noah and family to avoid polygamy, especially
since it was a part of the human experience before the flood,
(Gen.4:19). If monogamy was God’s preference, why did He not
make this as strong a law as he did against eating blood? The fact
that polygamy was in human experience already, yet was not even
hinted at in this post-flood setting, should cause us all to reflect
soberly on God’s real attitude toward polygamy.
The fact that God’s very best servants, the “elite” among all
saints, practiced polygamy, concubinage and accepted prostitution,
with not so much as a hint of God’s displeasure, weighs heavily in
favor of the fact that God did not forbid it, that He even accepted it
as normal among humans, just as He created it to be a normal instinct
in the animal kingdom. The evidence that God felt otherwise about
this practice simply does not exist.
Consider this list of God’s greatest examples of faith in Hebrews
chapter 11.
Abraham - polygamist and concubinist - no censure anywhere.
Isaac – polygamist and concubinist - no censure anywhere.
Jabob – polygamist and concubinist, went in to a prostitute - no
censure anywhere.
69
Gideon – polygamist and concubinist - no censure anywhere.
Samson – polygamist and concubinist - no censure anywhere.
David – polygamist and concubinist - no censure anywhere.
In all God’s dealings with these men He never even attempted to
tell them it was sin or even inadvisable for them to marry more
than one wife or to have concubines. Nor did it perturb Him that
the one whose name was changed to Israel, the father of the Jewish
nation, bore a child by his daughter in law thinking she was a
prostitute, and that this child, Perez, was an ancestor of Israel’s
greatest king, David, and of Jesus Christ, (Lk. 3:31-33).
Contrary to church teaching and bold statements that the NT
corrects polygamy, and makes monogamy the only possibility for
humanity, there is not one statement in all the NT that says this. The
best that can be found are some verses that might imply this to be so.
Even these are by no means determinative. Let's consider them:
“He who created them from the beginning made them male and female
and…the two shall become one flesh,” (Matt. 19:4,5). From this it is
argued that, “God intended one man and woman to become one
flesh. He never intended that more than a couplet engage in
marriage.” The answer to this quibble seems obvious and easy.
What is problematic about one man and two women becoming one
flesh? Is it possible for two to become one, but impossible for three
to become one? Jesus’ point is not that two and two only can become
one. His point is that marriage creates oneness between the mates,
however many there be. If we do not think so, then do we think
Jacob, Leah and Rachel were not “one flesh?” If only one of his
wives could qualify, then surely Jacob was “one flesh” only with
Leah for she was his first wife. Thus Rachel, though a wife, was not
“one flesh” with her husband! Isn’t this really too absurd to argue
further?
“Because of immorality let each man have his own wife and let each
woman have her own husband,” (1 Cor. 7:2). Again this is thought to
eliminate the possibility of each man having his many wives, and
each wife having her many husbands. But it no more eliminates
multiple marriage than does the preceding text. This simply states
God’s recommendation that people marry in order to avoid
“immoralities.” If we are disposed to be utterly literalistic with this
70
text, perhaps we should take literally the admonition that “it is good
for a man not to touch a woman,” (vs. 1). Add to this that, “to him who
knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin,” (Jas. 4:17). Thus
we have “Biblical authority” for condemning as “sinners” all men
who touch a woman. We can see too clearly for such to be taken
seriously. Paul is not trying to reinforce monogamy as God’s
preference for humanity. Monogamy is not in the subject matter at
all. His one concern is to protect God’s people from the troubles
coming upon them because of the “present distress” (vs. 26). Any
attempt to press the words of vs.2 beyond their singular meaning,
and apart from their context, is inexcusable.
In light of the fact that Corinth was a pagan city, laden with
Greek culture, including large-scale practice of polygamy, this
would have been the perfect place to make an inspired statement
about “monogamy alone for all who want to go to heaven.” If
monogamy is in fact mandated for humanity, then how can we
possibly explain total absence of references to it in the NT, and
especially in this epistle whose whole emphasis is on correcting
spiritual (1 Cor. 1 - 3), moral (1 Cor. 5 - 6), relational (1 Cor. 7-10),
liturgical (1 Cor. 10 -14) and doctrinal (1 Cor. 15) problems in the
church at Corinth? We should find here, if nowhere else, God’s
transparent declaration for monogamy, plus His requirement that
all Corinthian polygamist men must divorce all wives except the
first one. The absence of such admonition in such a context speaks
volumes. The “thunder of God’s silence” in this case is compelling.
“An elder…must be the husband of one wife…” (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus
1:6).
“Deacons… must be husband of one wife, (1 Tim. 3:12).
The requirement that elders and deacons be husbands of one
wife, cannot be made to infer anything more than that church
leaders must have only one wife. This is akin to the requirement
that Israel’s kings not “multiply wives unto yourselves…” The
possibility of being led away from truth because of the great
influence of many wives and concubines is illustrated by Solomon’s
history. It would be the same for Christian leaders. Because they
are responsible for the souls of many they must be extra careful
about any influence that will lead them away from truth. Yet even
for elders in the church there is a possibility that some might be
acceptable even though they have more than one wife on the same
71
premise that one might be acceptable as an elder even though he
fell short in one of the other qualifications. If we look at the
qualification as a list to which one must measure up perfectly then
no one would ever qualify as an elder. If a man had 3 wives, and
yet measured up to all the rest of the qualifications in admirable
manner, would it not be ridiculous to forbid him leadership in the
church when his spiritual qualifications might outstrip those of all
other applicants? If his spiritual leadership is of high enough
quality then he would be able to handle multiple wives without
being led astray from God. This probably explains why David
could be such a great king and a man “after God’s own heart,”
though he had many wives and concubines. And in spite of the fact
that God told the kings to not multiply wives for themselves, we
remind you that it was God himself who gave to David his many wives
and concubines, and said He would have given him many more if he
wanted them, (2 Sam. 12:7, 8). So God’s specific order was not meant
to be an absolute prohibition against a king having many wives. It
was a warning of the dangers such could bring. But because He
knew David’s heart, and because apparently God considered
having many wives and concubines to be a blessing, He gave many
of them to David. In the same manner we probably ought to see
Paul’s instruction for elders to have only one wife. It cannot be
viewed as more rigidly prohibitive for elders in the church than it
was for kings in Israel. The safest course to pursue for spiritual
leaders is monogamy; not for moral reasons, but because of their
responsibility to avoid influences that would lead them to apostasy
and thus endanger the souls of those whom they lead. It is
doubtless much less of an absolute requirement for elders than we
want to think. As it was with Israel’s kings, so it is with leaders in
the church.
An important question here is, “what circumstances existed in
Ephesus and Crete that would make such a requirement as this
appropriate for the epistles to Timothy and Titus?” If polygamy did
not exist in the churches of that time this restriction makes no sense
at all. If there was no probability of church leaders having more
than one wife how could Paul, by inspiration, make an issue of it?
The fact that this restriction appears in these epistles is secondary
proof that polygamy was in the church at that time just as church
history affirms. The surprising thing is that, even though polygamy
was in the church Paul made a restriction only regarding elders and
72
deacons. If polygamy was a detestable thing how could Paul refuse
to tell Timothy and Titus to eradicate it from the church? God
required a similar thing of Israel, under Nehemiah’s leadership,
requiring them to leave their pagan wives.
God was very pointed about telling Christians what things
would keep them out of the kingdom of God. He gives detailed
lists of such sins in 1 Cor. 6:9, 10; Gal. 5: 19-21; Eph. 5:5; Col. 3:5-9,
etc. Since polygamy existed in the church how is it possible that
God considers it a great sin and yet fails to mention it even once as a
“sin” requiring repentance? This fact appears strongly to
demonstrate that God’s mind has not changed from what we see in
the OT record. What He accepted before the cross He still accepts.
Society’s attitude is not the standard of right and wrong on this
issue. The church’s attitude is not the standard. Nor is hatred for
the Mormon church. God’s word is the standard. The combined
facts of polygamy’s existence in the NT church, with God’s silence
about it, demonstrates God abiding acceptance of it. God did not
correct it in the NT simply because He did not see it as needing
correction.
The statements in Smith’s Bible Dictionary can be disposed of
easily. He says
“Our Lord and His apostles re-established the integrity and
sanctity of the marriage bond by the following measures:
(1) by the confirmation of the original charter of marriage as the
basis on which all regulations were to be framed, Mt. 19:4,5;”
Reply: This “original charter” states nothing of monogamy.
Nowhere is there a law, principle or anything else that shows God’s
original intention was monogamy. Jesus deals only with the matter
of divorce, not of multiple wives. It is adultery for a man to divorce
his wife and marry another. But nothing is said of the well
established practice of being faithful to the first wife, and marrying
another.
“(2) by the restriction of divorce to the case of fornication, and
the prohibition of remarriage in all persons divorced on improper
grounds, Mt. 5:32; 19:9; Rom. 7:3; 1 Cor. 7:10,11;”
Reply: Again Jesus deals with divorce, not polygamy. Jesus
intended men to understand that they are bound to faithfully care
for their wives and not divorce them simply in order to marry
73
another wife. If they desired another wife they could marry one,
but they could not divorce the first one to do so. This was a
protective measure for the wife that was God’s original intention
from the beginning.
“(3) by the enforcement of moral purity generally, Heb. 13:4,
and especially by the formal condemnation of fornication, Acts
15:20.”
Reply: “Moral purity” is not defiled by polygamy. It was
never so in the OT, and nothing in the NT makes it so. The “moral
purity” of Abraham, Jacob, Gideon David and all the rest was not
defiled by their polygamy. If it was, then God’s offer to give David
even more wives and concubines was an offer to defile his morality
even more! If a man was faithful to love and care for as many wives
as he had, he was “morally pure.” And “fornication” was never
associated with polygamy or concubinism. God’s “formal
condemnation of fornication” has less than nothing to do with
polygamy and concubinage. The meaning of the word and its
application do not allow for such a statement as the above.
Quotes from early church fathers:
It is always interesting to examine the writings of the earliest
church leaders, historians and writers, for what they can show us
about the attitudes of the earliest saints in spiritual matters.
Consider these:
“Your impudent and blind masters even until this time permit
each man to have four or five wives. And if anyone sees a beautiful
woman and desires to have her, they quote the doings of Jacob.”
(Justin Martyr, c. 160a.d.)
“If it were allowable to take any wife or as many wives as one
chooses – and how he chooses – David would have permitted this.
Nevertheless the men of your nation practice this all over the earth,
wherever they sojourn.” (Justin Martyr)
“Others, again, following upon Basilides and Carpocrates, have
introduced promiscuous intercourse and a plurality of wives, and
are indifferent about eating meat sacrificed to idols, maintaining
that God is not greatly concerned about such matters.” (Irenaeus, c.
180).
74
“The contracting of marriage with several wives has been done
away with from the times of the prophets. For we read, “Do not go
after your lusts, but refrain yourself from your appetites” (Sir.
18:30). And in another place, “Let your fountain be blessed and
rejoice with the wife of your youth.” This plainly forbids a plurality
of wives.” (Methodius, c. 290)
On qualifications for those chosen to be elders, we have statements
like these.
“We have already said that a bishop, a presbyter, and a deacon,
when they are constituted, must be married but once, whether their
wives are alive or whether they are dead.” (Apostolic Commission,
compiled c. 390)
“You say “it is true that the apostle has permitted remarriage
after the death of a spouse. You also say that it is only those who
are of the clerical order that he has stringently bound to the yoke of
one marriage. For that which he prescribes to one certain person, he
does not prescribe to all.” (Tertullian, c. 217).
Historian and Editor, David Bercot, says this about these quotes
and many like them:
“(They) understood the verses above (1 Tim. 3:2, 12) to apply to
any second marriage, including a remarriage after one’s spouse had
died. If a person had been remarried for any reason, that person
was disqualified from being ordained into the clergy…The
Montanists went even further, prohibiting even laypersons from
remarrying after the death of their spouses.”
(all above quotes from Bercot, A Dictionary of Early Church Beliefs, p.
657)
These quotes prove that the church recognized and accepted
polygamy and contained much of it within their individual
fellowships. It also shows the beginnings of that same legalistic,
human law making tendency that forever plagues those trying to
find and follow simply the truth, without having to wade through
the dogmatic, hair-splitting, Scripture twisting tactics of those who
think they know better how the church should function, and how
humans should live, than the God who created the church and
humans.
75
No one today, except radical legalists, holds the position that no
one is allowed to remarry even if their spouse dies. Most do not
believe that a man is disqualified from being an elder if he is
remarried after the death of his previous wife. Those today who
believe such nonsense are as wrong as these quoted above, and for
the same reasons. They are not content to allow God to say what
He wants to say and allow all saints to abide by God’s simple
words. They are compelled to begin splitting hairs until they have
devised a code book that goes far beyond anything God said or
intended. Like the Jews in Jesus’ day they “make many laws that are
grievous to bear,” against whom Jesus pronounced this curse: “In
vain do they worship me, teaching as their doctrines the commandments of
men.”
Jesus had no patience with Phariseeism in His day, and neither
should we. It is interesting to see that the perverse nature of man’s
heart is such that within 150 years of the apostle’s deaths, the
church was beginning to adopt human rules that went beyond
God’s actual words.
The premise still stands it seems to us: Polygamy existed
throughout the entire era of Biblical revelation, from Moses
(Genesis), through John (Revelation). By the testimony of some of
the early church fathers it existed in the church during the first two
centuries. Yet when everything else was changing and there was
the one perfect opportunity – we should even say the only possible
opportunity – to set the course of the church in a different direction,
when the NT was being written, no apostle wrote a syllable about
God’s preference for monogamy. If the apostolic writings are
indeed our sole basis for faith and practice must we not be satisfied
with their silence on this subject? And is that silence not
profoundly significant in view of the prevalence of polygamy in
that century, even in the church? Are we justified in making our
human and fallible interpretations the rule for faith and practice in the
church? If we truly believe that God condemns polygamy now,
then:
Why condemn it now, but never before?
If it was acceptable in OT times, what happened that changed it
into a sin?
If polygamy was a blessing for David, what transformed it into a
curse for us? Certainly not God’s law, for there is no such law.
76
The nature of polygamy has not changed. If God with His
infinite wisdom, looked with approval at polygamy in OT
times, how can we believe He looks at the same thing now, with
disapproval?
If it is as important as we think it is, why not a word about it in
the only book God gave us that enables us to follow His will?
Why are we left to arrive at the conclusion that polygamy is sin
by using human reasoning, rather than having a direct
revelation? Human reasoning is good for many things, but is
utterly worthless for establishing Divine law.
If we follow the same reasoning used to condemn polygamy,
then we must also condemn instrumental music in worship,
clapping, raising hands and dancing in worship. Anyone who
accepts any of these worship expressions, does so in the face of
the silence of the NT.
This study is not meant to publicly embrace or recommend
polygamy in practice or teaching. The value of this study to any
child of God is that we strive to learn truth and that we honor His
word regardless of how it may conflict with opinions and
traditions. It is a dishonor to God to dispute His word for any
reason. Once learning truth we dishonor God if, for any reason, we
choose man’s laws, traditions, rules, etc. over God’s truth.
Doubtless most readers would not choose polygamy even if it was
acceptable in our society. And if we must avoid the practice of
polygamy because of prevailing social mores and civil laws, we are
not therefore obligated to consent that man’s way is best. At all
times God’s people must affirm God’s truth above all, even when
that might incur the wrath of others.
We do not advocate that anyone begin a crusade to attempt to
convert the church and modern society to the position taken in this
writing. All that is necessary is that, if one believes this to be truth,
then one embrace it in relationship first with God, by admitting
that we have been wrong and then affirming His truth. Then we
must allow this truth to control our attitude toward those who
attempt to practice it. We cannot at the same time believe that
polygamy is basically acceptable with God, and then join those
who castigate Mormons, e.g. because they attempt to practice it.
And then we must, if we say anything about it at all, say what we
believe is true. If we lack the courage to say that we believe
77
polygamy to be acceptable to God today just as it always was, then
we need to simply be silent.
Our conclusion:
Nothing in the NT changes what throughout the OT was a
widespread practice accepted by God and even granted to David as
a blessing. Polygamy was never a sin in OT, nor is there any
indication in all Scripture that God even disapproved of it. God’s
attitude did not change after Christ died. From a moral vantagepoint
a man may now, as then, have as many wives as he is able to
fully provide for and protect. From a practical vantage-point
polygamy is not tolerated in the hostile environment of our society
and should therefore be avoided.
CONCUBINAGE
First, to be sure that we know what we are considering, we will
look at the definition of this word and some comments from
modern scholars.
Concubine: Heb. “a paramour.” (Strong’s #6370, 3904)
“A female slave responsible for bearing children to insure
continuation of the family name. Access to the royal concubines
was viewed as a legal claim to the throne, hence they were
accorded special protection. Concubines were viewed with
affection by their husbands and any assault on their well being
might be cause for vengeance. Although frequently their function
was to provide sexual gratification (“man’s delight” Eccl. 2:8) they
might also be given considerable responsibility. ”
–Eerdman’s Bible Dictionary, pg. 230 f.
“The difference between wife and concubine was less marked
among the Hebrews than among us, owing to the lack of moral
stigma. With regard to the children of wife and concubine, there
was no such difference as our “illegitimacy” implies. The state of
concubinage is assumed and provided for by the law of Moses. A
concubine could generally be either (1) a Hebrew girl bought of her
father; (2) a Gentile captive taken in war; (3) a foreign slave bought;
78
or (4) a canaanite woman, bond or free. Free Hebrew women might
also become concubines. To seize on royal concubines for his use
was often a usurper’s first act. Such was probably the intent of
Abner’s act, 2 Sam. 3:7, similarly the request on behalf of Adonijah
was construed, 1 Kg. 2:21-24. ”
– Smith’s Bible Dictionary, pg. 122 f.
Scriptures:
Let us see what the Bible actually says about concubinage. We
begin by listing all the texts that refer to polygamous relationships,
with brief notations.
Sarah asks Abraham to have sex with Hagar. There is no hint of
God’s displeasure with either Sarah or Abraham, and no
condemnation of Abraham’s “adultery(?)!” (Gen. 16:2f).
Abraham had sons by several concubines, (Gen. 25:6). Inasmuch
as Abraham is held forth to us as the premier example of faith and
close relationship with God (e.g. Galatians and Heb. 11) it is
passing strange that God would not say something about his
concubinage, in order at least to warn us, if God did not want us to
follow his example in that. Did God disapprove of this practice,
and yet never even hint at such displeasure to this great man of
faith, whom He called his “friend?”
Keturah is named as Abraham’s concubine, (1 Chron. 1:23).
Rachel gives her maid to Jacob for sex, more than once, (Gen.
30:3, 7). God does not correct. Leah also gives her maid to Jacob for
sex, (Gen. 30: 9, 12). Thus Jacob has two wives and two concubines
with whom he has sexual relations. God does not correct it,
indicating that God is not displeased with it.
Timna was concubine to Esau’s son Eliphaz, (Gen. 36:12).
One who buys a female slave must be fair to her. If he takes
“another woman” he may not neglect the first one. This “ordinance” is
God’s law, (Ex. 21:1, 8-10). This is God’s allowance for a man having
more than one sexual mate.
Gideon had a concubine who bore Abimelech, (Jdg. 8:31). He
was a valiant warrior, a faithful servant and he died without God
ever rebuking him or correcting his concubinage.
79
A Levite takes a concubine for himself. She leaves to play the
harlot against him. He is called her “husband,” (Jdg. 19:1-3).
Saul is married to Ahinoam, (1 Kg. 14:50), and has a concubine
named Rizpah, (2 Sam. 3:7).
David has 10 concubines whom he leaves in charge of his house
while fleeing Absalom, (2 Sam.15:16). Absalom has sex with the 10
concubines on the roof of the palace, in the sight of all Israel, (2
Sam. 16:21,22). David isolates the 10 concubines and has no more
sex with them, (2 Sam. 20:3).
David grows old and cold, so his servants find a “beautiful young
virgin,” Abishag, to lie with him to keep him warm, (lKg. 1:1-4).
Why a “beautiful-young-virgin?” Obviously it is the sexual
excitement that would increase the “heat” so David would be
warm. She was to “service” David, or “to be familiar with” him in a
sexual way, (Strong’s #5532). The Septuagint (Greek Translation of
OT) renders it “to excite him.” The natural body of even an
extremely beautiful woman would provide no more physical
“warmth” than any of the many wives and concubines David
already had. It is the added sexual “heat” that they count on to
warm David. And since David has so many women already, what
difference does one more make? Abishag becomes his concubine.
Now, what might this example have to say about the nature and
definition of “lust of the flesh” and “lust of the eyes?” Why do we not
have here even a simple sentence like, “Now the Lord was not
pleased with this plan…” or something to indicate that it was
wrong, if it was?
David had sons by several wives, “besides the sons of the
concubines,” (1 Chron. 3:1-9).
As per custom, Solomon “inherited” all of David’s wives and
concubines, including Abishag, then proceeded to add hundreds
more! Adonijah asks to have Abishag for wife. Solomon is enraged
and has Adonijah killed, (1 Kg. 2:17-25). Solomon acquires a
“harem” of concubines and wives, (Ecc. 1:8).
Caleb, Jerahmeel’s brother, had a wife and 2 concubines, Ephah
and Maachah, (1 Chron. 2:42- 48).
Manasseh’s “Syrian concubine” bears Machir, (1 Chron. 7:14).
Rehoboam “took 18 wives and 60 concubines,” (2 Chron. 11:18).
80
The Song of Solomon praises the beauty of the “Shulamite”
maiden and chooses her above 60 queens, 80 concubines and
virgins without number, (Song of Sol. 6:4-9). This is amazing in
light of the fact that virtually the whole church sees this story as an
allegory of Christ’s love for His church. If God detests or even
disfavors polygamy and concubinage, how can we think he would
put Christ in even a figurative position of choosing the church as the
best among His many wives and concubines? If polygamy and
concubinage are detestable, and if God planned to end these
practices at the cross, He would never use it as a symbol for any
part of the relationship between Christ and the church.
The practice of concubinage, with God’s approval, proves that
God does not fundamentally care about the number of sex partners a
person may have. The fact is clear, that God does not care
fundamentally about the sex act as such. He cares that the people
involved not do what is harmful to each other.
Rom. 13:10 says,
“Love does no wrong to his neighbor, love therefore is the fulfillment of the
law.” In sex as in all else, God requires that we not harm others.
Otherwise, He is not demonstrably concerned with who has sex
with whom or how often. As with polygamy, concubinage
demonstrates the Biblical reality that sexual activity is not inherently
dirty, and that God’s demand is not that one man has sex with only
one woman for life. Concubinage, just as polygamy, provided a
God approved outlet for the greater sexual desire of the male. If
providing for the actual fulfillment of the sexual desire is not
wrong, then obviously the desire itself is not wrong. Even God
acknowledges this, by accepting, and even legislating in favor of
concubinage.
81
CHAPTER FOUR
GOD’S EROTIC POETRY –
THE SONG OF SOLOMON
Nowhere in the Bible do we find a clearer illustration of God’s
attitude toward sex and the human body, than in the Song of
Solomon.
Few people understand the graphically erotic nature of
this love poem. Its explicit yet unashamed eroticism has been the
cause of problems for commentators even before NT times.
Spiros Zodhiates says this about the book, “Because of its explicitly erotic
character, ancient Jews and Christians alike rejected its literal
interpretation and allegorized it…
The early Christian inability to
deal with this book at the literal level was influenced more by the
Greek philosophy of the time than by the Bible itself…The erotic
nature of the book was probably a source of embarrassment, but
these legal God-ordained gaieties should not be shunned, only properly
understood…” (Hebrew Greek Key Study Bible, introduction to Song of
Solomon emph. mine, D.C.).
Other commentators are likewise
straightforward in labeling this book as erotic poetry.
The issue of whether the book is to be interpreted literally or
allegorically is irrelative. That God used erotic language in either
case, says something about God that we must consider carefully.
If the language God uses in this book is unfitting to be used in a literal
sense how can we possibly argue that it is good to use it in an
allegorical sense? If the allegory is appropriate, then so is the
language in which the allegory is framed.
Sex and sexual language,
in this case very explicit sexual language, cannot be inherently nasty
and still be used as an allegory for Christ and the Church. The
human body cannot be considered shameful and yet be used as an
allegory of Christ’s delight in His Bride, the church. It cannot be
vulgar to describe the sexual body parts of the opposite sex, and at
the same time good to use such descriptions to allegorize Christ’s
love for His Bride. Like it or not we have here a book in which God,
through the Holy Spirit, uses the most explicit sex language some
people will ever hear. The language God uses here and the sexual
situations He describes, cannot be thought of in any other way than
that God delights in and approves of what He is writing about. In
doing so, God reveals more about His attitude toward sex, the
naked human body, and the beauty and sexual eroticism involved
in looking at another’s sexual organs, than most church leaders and
82
most Christians can handle. Most of them will not accept the literal
references of this book. In his commentary on the Song of Solomon,
Adam Clarke overtly condemns much of it as being too sexually
graphic for even true translation. Some have even decided that the
book should not even be accepted as Divinely inspired, on the sole
basis of its erotic language.
So here we have a book, inspired by God, that deals intentionally
and positively with all aspects of sexuality, without shame or
apology. This is truly erotic poetry. It was inspired by God. What is
recorded in this little book stands as God’s testimony to sexual
experience and the beauty of the human body. Let’s look at what is
there.
A woman asks for the kisses of her lover, “Let him kiss me with
the kisses of his mouth,” (1:2). Later, she says, “his mouth is full of
sweetness,” (5:16), and he says, “her mouth is like the best wine,” (7:9).
In both these last two cases the same Hebrew word for “mouth” is used (Strong’s #2441). It means the inside of the mouth. The
marginal note says it literally means “palate.” She is asking for, and they enjoy, deep mouth kissing. The Anchor Bible,
commenting on these verses, says these verses were “explicit references to kisses…including amative oral activities,” (i.e. oral sex).
That is, not only the lips, but also the tongues were involved, and not only the mouth, but other parts of the body were involved, including kissing the genitals.
The Jerusalem Bible also implies that the kissing
was all over the body: “Your lips cover me with kisses.” So right at the
start of this poem, we have references to an activity that most
“holy” people can’t believe to be in the Bible. But the references are
there! And it only gets “worse!” (?)
The sexual closeness of the couple has excited the woman and
she says: “While the king was at his couch, my spikenard gave forth its
smell,” (1:12). This refers to the custom of perfuming her sexual
parts. Her rising body heat caused the smell of her perfume,
mingled with her natural sexual musk, to fill the air.
“How handsome you are my beloved, and how luxurious is our
couch,” (1:16) is an unabashed reference to her delight in looking at
him and delighting in the place where they make love. He asks to
“see your form…for your form is lovely,” (2:14). He wants to look at
her body because she had a great figure! That he asks to look at her
83
naked body becomes apparent as we continue reading through the
book, noting the many description of her body, from head to toe.
There is an abundance of highly sexual images in this poem,
even though veiled from the modern reader. The translators
evidently could not bring themselves to actually translate many of
these words literally and demurred from literal translation in other
places because of the figurative references to explicit sex practices.
Adam Clarke, a highly esteemed and respected, conservative
commentator, wrote:
“There are many passages in it which should not be
explained…the references being too delicate; and Eastern
phraseology on such subjects is too vivid…Let any sensible and
pious medical man read over this book, and if at all acquainted
with Asiatic phraseology, say whether it would be proper, even
in medical language, to explain all the descriptions and
allusions in this poem.” (Clarke’s Commentary).
The questions we just must ask about such a statement, is: “Did
God intend that His people read this book, and understand it? And
did God realize that His language was too crude and indelicate to
be translated into language that the common person could
understand?”
If God caused it to be written, He intended it to be
understood, and if God inspired the language of this book, then our
assumption must be that this inspired language is appropriate.
Surely such statements as the above reflect more upon Mr. Clarke’s
faulty sense of propriety than it does upon the book itself. And surely
such attitudes impugn the spirituality and holiness of the God who
inspired this book.
If there is anything wrong with the language in
the Song of Solomon then there is fault with God, for He should
have known better than to use such language! How insane it is for
humans to think they have reached such a state of superior
morality, that they can correct God and overtly label anything He
does or says as “improper.”
Perhaps we humans actually
understand sex better than the God who created it! Perhaps God
should now condescend to adopt our moral standards, rather than
we adopting His! Perhaps God should have consulted such
superior intellects as Mr. Clarke’s before He wrote this erotic poem.
Surely Mr. Clarke would have been glad to guide God into a choice
84
of language that would have been “acceptable” to the human
reader! Surely we can think better than this.
The imagery in this book may be meant to be an allegory of
something else, but it is definitely sexual imagery, and is used in
other places in the Bible. “Fruitful” is elsewhere a reference to
sexual reproduction (Gen. 1:28), and “fruit of the womb” refers to
offspring, (Gen. 30:2).
Semen is called “seed” in Lev. 15:16. Today
we say a man “sows his wild oats”; a virgin has a “cherry”; testicles
are “nuts,” etc. Exactly the same sort of sexually euphemistic
imagery is used throughout the Song of Solomon.
One of the fruits that represented sexual activity in Israel was
the pomegranate. Because of its many seeds it has been a symbol of
fertility from the most ancient times.
In Mythology, the mother of
Attis conceived him by putting a pomegranate between her breasts.
A fertility deity that Naaman worshipped was called “Rimmon,” (2
Kg. 5:18), the same word that is translated “pomegranate” in Song of
Solomon (Strong’s # 7416, 7417).
So when the woman says “I would cause you to drink the spiced
wine of my pomegranate,” (8:2) she is not offering him a juice drink!
She is offering him her fertility, her sexual love. Some believe she is
asking for oral sex! But sex indeed is what she is after, for the next
line (8:3) shows that the couple is reclining, and his left hand
should be under her head while his right hand “embraces” her. It is
in this position that she tells him to drink of the juice of her
pomegranate. As Adam Clarke says above, those who are “at all
acquainted with Asiatic phraseology” can see the erotic reference
here.
“The fig tree puts forth her green figs…arise my love, and come
away.” (2:13) “Figs were used from early times as symbols of sexual
fertility. The word “fig” signified “vagina” in several
Mediterranean languages, and one only needed to split open a
purple fig to see why.” (Kevin Aaron, Journey From Eden, p. 196).
The obscene gesture of “giving the finger” by which the male penis
and testicles are manually represented, is also called “making the
fig.”
“Mandrakes” (7:13) also are figurative of sexual fertility. They
are called “love apples”, and the Arabs refer to them as “the Devil’s
testicles.” The mandrake root itself resembles a man’s sex organs.
Many cultures believed that mandrakes were an aphrodisiac; they
were thought to arouse sexual desire. This is the explanation
85
behind Rachel’s attempt to bargain with Leah for her mandrakes in
exchange for the sexual favors of Jacob, (Gen. 30:14-16).
“Pomegranates,” “figs,” “apples,” “grapes,” “mandrakes,” all to
be enjoyed “in the garden” – all these are erotic images, used over
and over in this poem, as now the woman and then the man use
these fruits to refer to their persistent passion for sexual love. All
this comes to a focus when we read that the young woman is herself
a “garden,” and she invites her male lover to “come into his garden
and eat its choice fruits!” (4:12-16).
For a parallel in Eastern poetry, read these lines from a
Palestinian poem:
“Your breast, O You, is like a pomegranate fruit,
And your eyes have captured us, by God and by the
Merciful One.
Your cheek shines as it were a damascene apple;
How sweet to pluck it in the morning and to open the
garden.” (The Anchor Bible)
An Egyptian poem has this similar line:
“I entered your garden and plucked your pomegranates…”
(The Anchor Bible)
Now if we were trying to explain the meaning of these lines,
(4:12-16), how would we go about it? Would you not have to
comment that the woman’s body, specifically her vagina, is the
“garden,” and that her invitation to her lover to “come into your
garden” and “eat its fruit,” is an invitation to enter her vagina and
make love to her. And wouldn’t you also need to mention that the
probability is also extremely high that oral lovemaking was a part
of this invitation?
The erotic power of this woman’s invitation arises from the fact
that this man’s “garden” (her body) smells delightfully of myrrh,
aloes, cinnamon and frankincense (4:13, 14). These spices were
much in use in those days, to perfume the sexual organs, and
provide a sensual aroma for the love bed. Prov. 7:18,19 reads: “I
have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes, and cinnamon. Come, let us take
our fill of love until the morning.” The Song of Solomon has the man
describing her beauty, specifically her breasts, then saying “Until
the day breaks, and the shadows flee away, I will get me up to the
86
mountain of myrrh, and to the hill of incense.” (4:5, 6). He is not talking
about a midnight hiking trip into the mountains! He is going up to
the “mountain” and the “hill” of her pubic area!
This woman is a “garden enclosed,” but she will open to her
lover. She invites him into his garden – her body – to eat her fruits,
and drink the water of her love (4:12-16). The Interpreter’s Bible says
this: “In Oriental imagery the wife is described in terms of a
fountain, and sexual enjoyment in terms of drinking water.” This
same symbolism is used in Prov. 5:15-20: “Drink water from your
own cistern…Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice with the wife of
your youth. Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts
satisfy (margin: “water”) you at all times; and be ravished always with
her love.” Eating and drinking are euphemisms for sexual activity as
are the “hind and doe,” images that repeatedly appear in Song of
Solomon.
After inviting him into her garden, the man responds as he says,
“I am come into my garden, my sister, my spouse; I have gathered my
myrrh with my spice; I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey; I have
drunk my wine with my milk,” (5:1). He has enjoyed all the delights
of her body. God evidently sees sex as a pleasant appetite to be
filled, not as something dirty and disgusting to be endured only
when it is necessary!
A marriage poem from Sumeria uses this same imagery, as the
bride speaks to the groom, enticing him with an erotic description
of her charms:
“My god, sweet is the drink of the wine-maid,
Like her drink, sweet is her vulva, sweet is her drink,
Like her lips sweet is her vulva, sweet is her drink,
Sweet is her mixed drink, her drink.” (The Anchor Bible)
In such lines as these, the references to oral lovemaking cannot
be missed. In both this Sumerian poem and in the Song of Solomon,
the delights of sexual love most obviously involve enjoying the
entirety of the partner’s body, and “eating” and “drinking” sexual
enjoyment until each lover is full. Objections to oral sex are imposed
upon people in spite of the Bible’s teaching. Such objections do not
come from the Bible.
Another scene depicts the male lover in this Song, as feeding
among the lilies (2:16,17); “My beloved is mine and I am his: he feedeth
among the lilies. Until the day break, and the shadows flee away, turn, my
beloved, and be like a roe or a young hart upon the mountain of Bether.”
87
The roe and the hart were known for their beauty and
sensuality. The reference in this case to the all night “feeding”
among the lilies, is an erotic reference to love making. From ancient
times, in many cultures the lily or lotus has been used as a symbol
for sexual activity. The term “lotus licking,” is just another way of
saying cunnilingus. Lilies are used in reference to the mons veneris.
The Anchor Bible says that feeding among the lilies on the “mountain
of Bether,” refers to the “mountain of division,” referring
transparently to the divided vulva. Because women perfumed the
“mountain” of their “division,” or vulva, Moffatt’s Translation
translates this line this way: “Play like a roe or hart on my perfumed
slopes.” References to the male lover “feeding among the dark lilies”
located at the “divided mountain,” virtually demand that we
understand this to be a reference to oral sex. And such a reference,
in this context, means God recommends such delightful activity for
the enjoyment of His children. We suspect these references are
among those phrases that Adam Clarke felt should not even be
explained by a doctor using medical language! In other words, even
if God Himself refers to oral sexual activity, we should not read it that
way, should not approve of it, and should never teach it to others.
This means that, even if God said it, it is wrong!
In another scene, (2:3,4), the man is likened to an apple tree,
beneath which the woman sits with great delight. “As the apple tree
among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down
under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste.
He brought me to the banqueting table, and his banner over me was love.”
The meaning of these phrases may be a general reference to love
making, but they can also clearly be taken as a reference to fellatio,
as she sits “under his shade” or between his legs, and pleasures him
with her mouth. The Anchor Bible says “one could hardly miss the
sexual sense of the metaphor.” The “meal” these lovers are eating
in the “banqueting house” is not physical food, but sexual love.
And “the banner of love” he spreads over her, is not a tapestry he
hung on the wall!
Having compared the man to an apple tree, the Song now says
the woman is a palm tree, which the man intends to climb! (7:6-9).
“How beautiful and how delightful you are my love, with all your charms!
Your stature is like a palm tree, and your breasts are like its clusters. I
said, I will go climb the palm tree, I will take hold of its fruit stalks: O may
88
your breasts be like clusters of the vine, and the fragrance of your breath
like apples.”
This man is going to delight himself in the sight and feel of his
lover’s breasts. As one would pick the fruit from the branches he
sees her breasts as the fruit he will pick: they will be as clusters of
the vine, ready to pick and eat. When she asks him to “sustain me
with raisin cakes, refresh me with apples, because I am lovesick,” (2:5),
she is asking him to delight in her body.
The Song refers to a woman’s breasts as “clusters of grapes”
hanging down, sweet to taste, delightful to behold and delightful to
touch. He mentioned one woman who had breasts like “towers”
and expressed concern that his little sister’s breasts had not yet
developed, (7:8; 8:8-10). The woman says “A bundle of myrrh is my
well beloved to me; he shall lie all night between my breasts.” (1:13).
God is obviously not embarrassed by a woman’s breasts. He
created woman’s breasts as much to be sexual objects as for nursing
children. For a man to delight in a woman’s breasts is pure and
natural. And the desire to “eat” the nipples as he would eat grapes
is not only normal, it is recognized by God as part of the very reason
He made women’s breasts as He did, and made them a delight to men.
In other words, the reason men like women’s breasts is because God
made women’s breasts for men to enjoy.
There are more such references to sexual love making, and the
pure delight of a man and woman looking at each other’s naked
bodies, and describing them in the most explicit fashion. Such
forthright sexuality in the Bible has been a real stumbling block for
humans. This book has been the source of more controversy than
any other Biblical book – only because of its sexual language. The
Song refers to the human body, sexual organs, and love making in
all its forms, as beautiful, wholesome and erotically satisfying. The
body is not something that must be covered. It is not “nasty” to
talk about the human body nor to delight in its naked, sexual
beauty. Rejoicing in sexual activity is not something only
“perverts” do. Enjoying the act of sex for the pure pleasure of it is
good, healthy, and blessed by God. This book stands forever as
God’s personal commendation of human sexuality as something
good and delightful for His children. What is “perverted” is the
opposite attitude, that sees human nakedness and sexual activity as
inherently “unclean” or “unholy,” and something that all truly
spiritual people avoid talking about or thinking about.
89
Consider this scene: “Come back, come back O Shulammite; come
back that we might gaze at you! Why should you gaze at the Shulammite,
as at the dance of Mahanaim,” (6:13).
In 7:1-6, the girl is wearing nothing but shoes, for the boy’s
description of her whole body moves from feet to head. Admiring
her “navel” refers to her vulva, according to Interpreter’s Bible. In
the context, the girl is dancing, (thus the shoes) and the people call
to her to “come back” or as we would say “encore!” so they can
continue to look at her naked body. As the girl dances the “dance of
Mahanaim,” she is evidently either totally naked, or covered only by
a sheer, see-through garment, for the lover sees her whole body,
and describes it in detail, (7:1-9). Not only he, but also a number of
onlookers watch this nude dance, and he teases them by asking
“why are you looking at the Shulammite while she dances?” He knows
that they look for the same reason he looks. This girl is
exceptionally beautiful and her figure is “lovely.” They are looking
with great admiration upon this naked girl. As she finishes her
dance they beg her to return so that they can continue to look at
her. The Interpreter’s Bible commentary says this was some special
dance apparently performed in the nude. The Pulpit Commentary
says the dancing girl may have worn clothing of a light texture
through which the details of her body and breasts could be seen,
“according to the mode of dancing in the East.” (Journey From Eden, p.
49). Such nude dances as these were common place in that culture.
Adam Clark thinks she wore “transparent garments,” which would
allow her body to be viewed. The girl was dancing in such fashion
that her breasts were visible and described as a perfectly matching
pair, “two young roes that are twins.” As she danced, her breasts
bounced like young roes jumping on the hill. This girl had breasts
like “towers” – large, firm breasts – and this was a major factor that
caused the man to delight in her, (8:10).
God designed the male body and the female body specifically and
intentionally to be sexually attractive to each other. There is such an
openness in this book in describing the body and the act of love
making, and such a delight in the whole process that we humans
surely should take thought about the legitimacy of our attitudes
toward these things. If God speaks this way about nakedness and
sexuality why is it wrong for us to do so? If God sees all this as
beautiful, clean, desirable and even “holy,” how can we view it as
dirty and needing to be kept in the closet?
90
This erotic poem also represents the girl as being equally
unabashed about enjoying the sight of her naked lover. No
blushing rose here! In 5:11-15, the woman describes with obvious
delight, the man’s naked body from head to toe, including
euphemistic references to his penis (“belly”). Strong’s #4578 says
mayaw refers to “the abdomen…by extension the stomach, the
uterus ( or of men, the seat of generation…)” or as one translator
wrote, “His rod is arrogant ivory,” indicating that she marvels at
his erect penis. She likes to look at his body, he likes to look at her
body, and as the preceding paragraphs show, others like to look at
both of them too. Appreciation of the beauty and sexuality of the
human body is recognized here. Men and women looking at each
others bodies and loving the sight, is approved of in these
Scriptures.
Studying the Holy Spirit inspired language of this book forces
us to reconsider the validity of all our presumptions, opinions and
convictions about anything sexual. We can see from the foregoing
study that there is nothing about the body and its sexual organs, or
using those organs for their created purpose, that is dirty enough or
“unseemly” enough for God to hesitate to write a book about if for
all the world to read and understand. If The Perfectly Holy God
Who created our bodies and sexual apparatus and made us such
that our most powerful passion is sexual passion, sees sex as we
read about it in this book, then we must admit that this attitude is
the right attitude. God’s attitude toward sex is the perfect attitude
toward sex. If God brings sex out of the closet for all the world to
see, then we must resist every urge to stuff it back in there.
Nothing in all the Bible suggests to us that we should not talk
about sex with one another, even using the real words for all the
parts of the body. We have created euphemisms for sexual love and
sexual organs because we have a sense of shame and impropriety
about these things and just can’t bring ourselves to talk about them
without “covering” our language. Thus instead of saying penis we
say pecker, rod, dick, tool, etc. When we must refer to a woman’s
vulva, we say pussy, cunt, pet, door, etc. etc. If we refer to
masturbation we have to say things like spank the dog, beat the
meat, pump the handle, etc. Why? Since the Creator of all things
sexual does not show embarrassment about sex, why do we?
Our attitudes have not been derived from the Bible. We
assume the Bible avoids sex and treats it as basically dirty. The truth
91
is that the Bible regards sex highly and counts it as one of the
greatest blessings humans can enjoy. If not for our jaundiced views
of sex and the human body we would be free to fully and openly
enjoy sex. If we were not ashamed of our bodies we would not feel
compelled to hide from the view of all others. All of our foolish
opinions about these issues come from church leaders who cannot
trust people to read their Bibles and draw correct impressions from
it about sexual matters. They have taken the practical position that
God did not sufficiently reveal to humans all the rules and
regulations we need in order to truly control sex. We believe we
must be more sensitive and secretive about sex than God is. We
think we know better than to use the same “crude” language of sex
that God used here.
The modern church has tried its best to help God out since
apparently, in many minds, He did not do an adequate job of
defining decency. Modern religious people are offended at the
suggestion that God would actually inspire such a book as Song of
Solomon. Yet the fact remains that this book is part of the inspired,
eternal Word. Any suggestion that its language and sexual
references are crude, unacceptable for decent society, vulgar, etc, is
an accusation against God’s Personal Holiness, Purity and
Righteousness. On the other hand, if we can accept that this book is
inspired by God Himself and that its sexual content is not
shameful, unholy or in any other way foreign to God’s character,
then we are in a position to be able to understand God’s true
attitude toward sex. God made sex. God made sex enjoyable. God
made human bodies. God made them beautiful to look at. God also
created men and women such that we experience automatic sexual
reaction to the naked bodies of others. God sees this as good. And it
is all in harmony with His essentially Holy nature. There is no dirt
connected with sex or human nakedness. All dirt exists in human
minds.
We do not defend vulgarity or disregard for public morals. We
do however, defend Biblical morality, and the Biblical manner of
referring to and thinking about sex. Our deeply rooted, underlying
assumption that sex is basically dirty, is the reason we cannot see sex
as Scripture actually presents it. If we can get over this one hump
we are well on the way to developing a healthy, Biblical view of
sex. May that day hasten for as many individuals as are able to look
at God’s Word objectively and escape their sexual prisons.
92
CHAPTER FIVE
ADULTERY
In sexual matters, adultery is probably the primary sin.
Adultery is without question sinful. No one who commits adultery
can expect to receive God’s blessing or forgiveness until repentance
has been rendered. We do not mean that adultery is any “worse”
than other sins. We simply mean that adultery is absolutely
condemned by God. No circumstances may bring adultery into the
“exception” area. However, when adulterers repent they receive
immediate mercy exactly like all other penitents.
Since adultery is unalterably evil, and is warned of through
both OT and NT, no serious study of sexuality can ignore it. At the
same time anything as hellish as adultery must be considered with
intense care so that we are certain we know exactly what it is and
what it is not. We are convinced that severe misunderstanding
surrounds this subject, just as it does other sex matters. The
consequence of this misunderstanding takes at least the following
forms:
• People think adultery is particularly a sexual sin. It is not, as
we will show.
• Because people do not understand the true nature of adultery
many commit adultery unawares. Having done nothing
“sexual” they do not realize they have committed adultery.
• Some marriages that should be dissolved continue in
relentless misery simply because neither party has been sexually
unfaithful. Since “adultery” (as they conceive it) has not been
committed they think they are bound by God’s law to remain
married.
The truth about adultery will prove both liberating and
restricting. Truth here will enable some people to live without fear
of having committed this sin. Truth here will also bring some under
conviction of having “adulterated” against their mates even though
they have been sexually faithful to them. Let us look at what the
Bible actually says about adultery. Once again, we begin with
definitions of the Biblical words.
93
Definitions:
Heb. “To apostatize; a woman that breaks wedlock.” (Strong’s #’s
5003, 4, 5)
Gk. moixeia, “to commit adultery, a (male) paramour; fig. apostate,
adulterer.” (Strong’s #’s 3428, 3429, 3430, 3431, 3432)
“…adultery, an adulteress.” Moixalis, an adulteress, applied as an
adjective to the Jewish people who had transferred their affections
from God.” (E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Concordance to the English and
Greek New Testament, pg. 28.)
“The parties to this crime, according to Jewish law, were a married
woman, and a man who was not her husband…Symbolically
adultery is used to express unfaithfulness to covenant vows to God,
who is represented as the Husband of His people.” (Smith’s Bible
Dictionary, pgs. 21, 22)
“(The words) mean ‘to commit adultery’ or ‘to seduce’…to
adulterate, illicit intercourse, adulterer, lover, adulterous,
adulteress, mistress, harlot.” (Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament, pg. 605, 606)
“In Scripture, (adultery is) sexual intercourse by a married man
with another than his wife, or by a married woman with another
than her husband. It is distinguished from fornication, which is
illicit sexual intercourse by an unmarried person…It is a violation
of the original, divinely instituted marriage bond. Adultery
involves more than physical promiscuity. It also violates the
integrity of the person. The penalty for adultery in OT is death; no
partiality is shown the man: both parties in the act are equally
guilty.” (ISBE, vol. 1, pg. 58, 59)
Some observations must be made relative to this last quote. It is
not true that Scripture defines adultery as “sexual intercourse by a
married man with another than his wife.” As we will see, Scripture
does not recognize the possibility of a man, married or unmarried,
committing adultery except when he violates the married status of
the woman. Otherwise a man might copulate with numerous
concubines, slaves and even prostitutes without committing
adultery. As our study on polygamy and concubinage proved,
many of God’s choicest servants “had intercourse with another
than his wife” and was never charged with adultery, nor suffered
94
any rebuke or correction from God. Further, as we will
demonstrate, adultery is not the simple sexual act committed with a
married woman, but is the intent to deprive the husband of his property.
Further, it is not true that “fornication…is illicit sexual
intercourse by an unmarried person…” While this definition seems
to be standard in much writing and teaching it is nevertheless not a
valid lexical definition, and it does not meet the test of Biblical
usage. Fornication is a generic word, and is defined strictly as “any
illicit sexual activity.” “Fornication” does not in itself specify any
sex act as illicit. It encompasses all sexual acts that Scripture
defines as “illicit.” Unless Scripture defines “sexual intercourse by
an unmarried person” as illicit then the word “fornication” does
not apply to that act. “Fornication” has no inherent relationship to
the married status of the person committing it. Both married and
unmarried people may commit fornication by engaging in any act
that the Bible defines as illicit. Such acts as adultery, rape, bestiality,
incest, pedophilia and forced prostitution, are generically defined by
the word “fornication.” We will discuss the ramifications of these
observations as we proceed. Let us examine the Biblical references
to the sin of adultery.
Scripture References to Adultery:
Reuben lays with Bilhah, Jacob’s concubine, (Gen. 35:22). He is
cursed for this act, (Gen. 49:4). The adultery in this case is sexual
intercourse with a woman who belonged to another man.
Potiphar’s wife wants Joseph to have sex with her. He refuses,
giving the reason that “you are his wife,” (Gen. 39:7-9). Joseph
believes that to commit adultery is a “sin against God.” We wonder
if Joseph might have copulated with her if she had been
unmarried? The answer to that question must be determined by
what the Bible says about sex under those specific circumstances.
Joseph is concerned about what violates God’s will. Whether he
would copulate with this or any other woman, depends on what
God had spoken about particular situations. We must not jump to
conclusions before we study the evidence.
Adultery is strictly forbidden, (Ex. 20:14; Deut. 5:18, 21). One
may not “covet” a man’s wife or anything else that belongs to him,
(Ex. 20:17). Note first that these Scriptures do not deal with the act
of being sexually attracted to a woman even if she is married. They
95
deal with “coveting” which by definition, means to desire to deprive
another by taking what is his. Thus one cannot “covet anything that is
thy neighbor’s.” The desire to take what belongs to another is a sin.
So obviously a man cannot desire to take another man’s wife. But
this says nothing about sexual attraction to a neighbor’s daughter.
Can a man look at his neighbor’s daughter and be moved by sexual
attraction to the point of wanting to marry her? Certainly. But he
cannot look at his neighbor’s wife that way.
One must not commit adultery with a neighbor’s wife, (Lev.
18:20; 20:10).
Copulating with another man’s slave requires sacrifice, (Lev.
19:20). Since adultery is not dealt with on the basis of offering a
sacrifice, but by extracting the death penalty, it is obvious that this
act is not adultery. A man’s slave is not in the same category as his
wife. This is using another man’s property without paying
appropriate compensation. This is stealing. It requires a sin
sacrifice, not for the sex act, but for the theft of another’s property –
his sole rights to the sexual property of his slave.
Unfaithful wives are to be tried by priests, and punished if
guilty, (Num. 5:11-31).
A man who commits adultery with a married woman brings
death to both, (Deut. 22:22).
If an engaged virgin lies with another man in the city, both must
die, (Deut. 22:23-24). She dies for not “crying out,” and he dies for
humbling his neighbor’s wife. Because she was engaged she was
considered as good as married and therefore she was already the
sole sexual property of her betrothed/husband. Thus sex with
anyone other than her fiancé is “adultery.” The fact that she did not
“cry out” implies that her sexual act was consensual; i.e. she was not
raped. But if a man rapes an engaged virgin in the country, only he
dies, (Deut. 22:25-27). The presumption here is that the virgin
“cried out” but no one could hear her. The presumption is “rape”
which carries the death penalty against the rapist only.
If a man seizes an unengaged virgin and copulates with her he
pays the bride price to her father, marries her and can never
divorce her, (Deut. 11:28-29). This is his penalty for forcing himself
on her and ruining her as a prospect for carrying on the pure
96
lineage of another man as his wife. If she had voluntarily copulated
with him there would have been no penalty except that the man, if
discovered, would have to either marry her or pay her father a
dowry. We will note in passing that this text and similar texts
recognize the act of sex between unmarried people, but do not
define it as “fornication.”
“If I have been enticed by a woman or lurked at my neighbor’s door…”
i.e., If I have sinfully desired to take my neighbor’s wife, (Job 31:9).
His self-imposed curse is, “let others have sex with my own wife,” (vs.
10).
“Wisdom” delivers us from the “the immoral woman” and the
“seductress… who forsakes the companion of her youth; her house leads to
death,” (Prov. 2:16-19). This refers to an adulteress, a married woman
who forsakes her husband for other men.
The lips of an immoral woman drip honey. In the end she is as
bitter as wormwood; her feet lead to death and hell. Do not ponder
her way of life; she is unstable, (Prov. 5:3-6). Again, as defined by
2:16-19 and all else in Scripture, this is a married woman who leaves
her husband for other lovers. See also Prov. 5:7-14.
Rejoice with the wife of your youth; let her breasts satisfy you;
why be enraptured by an “immoral woman?” (Prov. 5:18-20). This
verse does not forbid marrying more than one woman. Nor does it
forbid all circumstances of copulation with a woman other than
one’s wife. This is proven quickly by the fact that the author,
Solomon, had 699 wives after the “wife of (his) youth” plus 300
concubines. This text demands faithfulness to the original wife. She
is not to be neglected, but is to receive favored attention and full
satisfaction in all aspects of marriage, especially sex.
God’s commandment is a lamp to keep one from the “evil”
woman, a seductress. Don’t lust after her beauty in your heart,
(Prov. 6:24-26). There is great harm to one who goes in to his
neighbor’s wife. So these are references to adultery; sex with a
married woman. One who commits adultery – steals another man’s
wife – lacks understanding and destroys his soul; he reaps wounds,
dishonor, lasting reproach and a husband’s fury, (vs. 32-35).
A young man meets an ”immoral woman” who is “rebellious” and
“would not stay at home,” (Prov. 7:7-11). She seduces him, (vs. 13ff),
97
promising “my husband is not at home,” (vs. 19, 20). This is a married
woman, an adulteress. The young man yields to temptation and
suffers the consequences, (vs. 21-23). Do not fall into her trap,
avoid her, she leads to death, (vs. 24-27).
A “foolish woman” entices the “naïve” to come in to enjoy “stolen
water” and “bread eaten in secret,” but death is in her house, (Prov.
9:13-18).
The mouth of an immoral woman is a deep pit. The Lord abhors
those who fall in it, (Prov. 22:14). A harlot is a deep pit, a seductress
is a narrow well. She victimizes men and increases the “unfaithful”
among men, (Prov.23:27). This is an adulterous woman; a married
harlot. She refuses to admit guilt, (Prov. 30:20).
More bitter than death is the woman who is a snare, etc. A man
who pleases God escapes her, but she snares sinners, (Ecc. 7:26).
Exactly why this woman is a snare is not specified. In light of all we
have seen she must be an adulteress.
Israel turned from God to spiritual and sexual adultery with idols,
(Isa. 57:4-8).
Israel “tore off her bands and…lay down as a prostitute,” (Jer. 2:20).
Like a wild donkey in heat, she mated quickly with any male that
pursued her, (vs. 24). This is a married woman who tore off the
bands of her marriage vows to commit adultery.
Israel is so skilled at adultery that she can teach even the “worst
of women,” (Jer. 2:33).
Israel has “lived as a prostitute with many lovers,” (Jer. 3:1). There
is no place where she has not been ravished, (vs. 2); she has no
shame, (vs. 3); She has committed adultery everywhere, (vs. 6).
God divorced her and sent her away because of her adulteries yet
Judah followed her example, (vs. 8). Her immorality mattered so
little to her that she “defiled the land, committing adultery with wood
and stone,” (vs. 9). She is like a woman “unfaithful to her husband,”
(vs. 20).
Because of God’s judgment, Israel will pursue adultery in vain,
(Jer. 4:30). That is, Israel will try to leave God and find safety,
provision and blessing with another “husband” but God will not
allow her to be satisfied.
98
God supplied Israel’s needs yet she committed adultery &
thronged to the houses of prostitutes, (Jer. 5:7). She is like “lusty
stallions, each neighing after another man’s wife.” This is adultery. As
judgment, God will give their wives to other men, (Jer. 8:10). Wait a
moment! If God gives their wives to “other men,” is God going to
sovereignly make “adulterers” out of these “other men?” Is God
going to simply impose a sinful condition upon them? This cannot
be. But this situation will help us see that simple sexual relations
with another’s mate is not “adultery.” Something else is required
in order for the sex act to be adulterous.
Israel is full of adulterers and unfaithful people, (Jer. 9:2).
“He that looks upon a woman to lust after her has committed adultery
already with her in his heart,” (Matt. 5:27, 28). We will return to this
classic statement later.
“Everyone who divorces his wife except for … unfaithfulness, makes
her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits
adultery.” (Mt. 5:32; Mk. 10:1ff; Lk. 6:18ff).
“An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, but no sign will
be given,” (Mt. 12:39).
“Whoever will be ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous
generation…” (Mk. 8:8).
“If while her husband lives, she is joined to another man, she shall be
called an adulteress, but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so
that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.” Rom.
7:3.
“Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers inherit the kingdom
of God,” (1 Cor. 6:9).
“The deeds of the flesh are evident, which are immorality,
impurity….” (Gal. 5:19).
“Whoremongers and adulterers, God will judge,” (Heb. 13:4).
“Adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that friendship with the
world is enmity with God?” (Jas. 4:4).
99
Comments and Observations:
The single greatest fear prohibiting people from enjoying the
range of sexual pleasure available to them is the fear of adultery.
This is to be expected. Adultery is condemned and those who are
guilty are threatened with severe punishment. No holy person will
even consider committing adultery. But is it crucial to our study to
understand what adultery actually is: not what it is said to be “by
those of old time.” Definitions matter supremely. Biblical examples
must be understood. Most of our paranoia about adultery comes
not from the Bible but from incorrect information handed down to
us for generations. Adultery has traditionally been defined as “sex
with someone other than our marital mate.” This definition of
“adultery” is false for two reasons:
1] It is not the true meaning of either the Greek or the
Hebrew word;
2] It does not meet the test of agreement with Biblical
examples.
Both adultery and prostitution are considered in Scripture to be
governed by property rights rather than by purity codes. Consider
again these quotes from above, (emphasis by the present authors).
Adultery is defined as, “To apostatize; a woman that breaks
wedlock.” (Strong’s # 5003, 4, 5)
“Symbolically adultery is used to express unfaithfulness to
covenant vows to God, who is represented as the Husband of His
people.” (Smith’s Bible Dictionary, pgs. 21, 22)
“…adultery, an adulteress.” Moixalis, an adulteress, applied as
an adjective to the Jewish people who had transferred their affections
from God.” (E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Concordance to the English and
Greek New Testament, pg. 28.)
“A young man meets an ”immoral woman” who is
“rebellious” and “would not stay at home,” Prov. 7:7-11.”
“Israel “tore off her bands and…lay down as a prostitute,” Jer.
2:20. This is a married woman who tore off the bands of her
marriage vows to give herself to another husband.
These statements suffice to demonstrate the core issue of
adultery. Adultery is committed by a woman who rebels against her
100
husband in going after sex with other men, or in other ways giving
her resources to them and depending on them, relating to them as
if they were her real husband. It is adultery because the husband
has not granted her freedom to have such association with other
men. She is his property (according to OT concepts) and she must
not breach his property rights by giving to others what he reserves
for himself alone.
A man commits adultery by taking from the married woman
what her husband has claimed as his sole privilege. It is this
“property rights” issue that distinguishes adultery. Strictly
speaking adultery is not a sex issue. Adultery is not “sex with
someone other than one’s spouse.” Adultery is taking what belongs
to someone else.
Adultery is not merely a sexual act. As we read from Scripture
Israel committed “adultery” against God numerous times yet all of
us understand that God and Israel never had sex, nor did “Israel”
as a nation have sex with other nations. Adultery is a matter of
rebelling against one’s spouse then putting trust in, depending on,
transferring one’s affections to another mate. By aligning herself
with foreign nations and taking their gods for herself Israel
committed adultery against God who was her true Husband. She
left God for another mate. Many things constitute adultery other
than a sex act. And a sex act itself is not adulterous unless it violates
the claim of exclusive ownership by one’s spouse. In other words, if
exclusive rights to a wife’s sexual favors is not claimed by a husband
then if his wife has sex with another man she has not thereby
committed adultery. There is no “rebellion” in her act and she has
in no way been “unfaithful” to her commitment to her husband.
She has not “broken the bands” of her marriage. If her faithfulness
to her marital commitment is not injured, the sex act has no moral
repercussions and it is not “adultery.”
It is impossible for us to perceive life as did Israel and her
neighbors. We have made many strides in the past few decades
toward realizing the full rights of women. We no longer have a
culture in which men generally consider women as “property.”
Especially in the Western world husbands do not feel they “own”
their wives. Women are granted liberty and privilege in every walk
of life, including marriage. But for us to understand the Biblical
concept of “adultery” we must understand that to the men of that
101
age a wife was as much his personal property as was a slave, a
horse or a house. His wife was granted more consideration that a
slave but she had very little more freedom or authority. From the
time of espousal the woman “belonged” to the man. Therefore for
another man to attempt to win a woman away from her fiancé was
considered “adultery.” Even if the two never had sex, any romantic
complicity between a fiancé and another man was “adultery.
Likewise in a marriage the husband maintained sole rights to
everything that pertained to his wife, including her sexuality.
Israelite men especially protected this sexual exclusivity because
his wife’s child-bearing capacity was absolutely crucial to his tribal
standing and posterity. A man’s future depended on his having
many children, especially sons. But these children must be his, and
not another man’s. Anything that might in anywise raise a doubt
about whether a child truly was his own was potentially
devastating to an Israelite husband. Their clannish, tribal Hebrew
culture demanded that a man have only “pure” offspring to receive
his inheritance. Otherwise his inheritance might fall into the hands
of another family.
The OT concept of adultery can be understood only when we
view it in light of its cultural setting. A man’s problem with a wife’s
sexual adultery was not merely a problem with her having sex with
another man. It was a problem with potential destruction of his
tribal lineage; a problem with knowing whether her children were
actually his. We have no such cultural concerns today, so it is hard
for us to see the importance of this issue. But to them it was a
survival matter.
And adultery was not limited to sexual unfaithfulness. Adultery
was a matter of being unfaithful to the marriage covenant. A man’s
wife could not leave him and live with another man as long as she
did not have sex with the second man. Property rights came into
play. Since she belonged to her husband, to leave and go to another
man was to participate in marital theft; taking the husband’s
property (herself, her presence, her abilities, her house-keeping,
cooking, etc.) and giving it to another man. Because she was an
accomplice to this theft she was as guilty as the second husband
and they were both to be executed. Adultery was, and is, breaking
marriage, destroying the marriage bond. There are more ways to
do this than mere sexual unfaithfulness. When a man abuses his
wife physically, mentally, emotionally or financially, he has
102
“broken covenant” with her and is an “adulterer.” Most marriages
in our society are formed around public vows whereby a man
swears before God and human witnesses that he will “love, cherish,
and honor” his wife, and promises to “protect and provide for her”
as well as to “keep myself (sexually) for you alone.” Any breach of
those vows is “adultery.” If a man makes six distinct vows, and
breaks all but one of them, how do we consider him “faithful?” If a
man honors his sexual vow but refuses to “love, honor, cherish,
protect and provide” for his wife has he been faithful to the
marriage covenant? Absolutely not!
Consider too, that whatever is not mutually enjoined upon each
other by the marriage covenant cannot be made a matter of
adultery. Suppose neither of the pair vowed to love, honor, cherish,
protect and provide for the other. To fail in any of those specifics
would not constitute breaking marriage covenant because none of
them was a part of that covenant. And if the couple did not vow to
grant the other exclusive rights to their sexuality, then to have sex
with someone else would not constitute breach of marriage
covenant. In other words it would not be adultery. It could not
possibly be so because sexual exclusivity was not a part of the
covenant. We say it again for emphasis: adultery is not “having sex
with someone other than one’s spouse.” Adultery is breaking the
marriage bond. Whatever breaks that bond is adultery. If a husband
and wife did not “bind” themselves to sexual exclusivity, then for
either of them to have sex with a third party is not adultery. It may
be something terrible, but it is not adultery.
If this is almost too outlandish to accept, put yourself again in
the OT setting and think of a righteous man like Jacob. He married
Leah first, then Rachel. Did he commit adultery with Rachel? Or
was it OK just because they were both married to him? Well, then
consider Judah’s encounter with his daughter-in-law Tamar (Gen.
38). He thought she was a prostitute and paid to have sex with her.
But even though adultery was a serious crime he was not accused
of adultery. Instead, when the affair was discovered he suffered
nothing more than a mild embarrassment at not having fulfilled his
promise to her. Maybe Abraham will help us again. He was
married to barren Sarah. In order to have children she could claim
as her own, Sarah insisted that Abraham copulate with Hagar,
Sarah’s maid. Abraham did so, thus having sex with someone other
than his wife. But Abraham did not commit adultery. Nor did he
103
commit any sort of sexual sin. Or how about all the others who had
wives yet without a second thought had sex with their wive's
“handmaidens,” with concubines, with slaves and with prostitutes.
All of this occurred under a law that mandated the death penalty
for both the man and woman caught in adultery. The sexual
proclivity of men like David, Solomon, Gideon and others was
public knowledge. If having sex with so many women to whom
they were not married was “adultery” why were none of those men
ever accused? Why were none of them ever punished? The truth
stares us right in the face doesn’t it? In a culture that knew exactly
what adultery is and is not, and took severe measures to do away
with adultery, having sex with people other than one’s mate was a
common occurrence, yet was never treated as adultery. Indeed it was
never treated as even unusual. Think about it! Even godly men
going in to prostitutes was not thought to be anything worth
fretting about. Doesn’t it make you wonder how we got all our
concepts about the sordidness of all sex except monogamous
intercourse in the missionary position?
In the OT system a slave woman who has sex with a man other
than her master is not considered an adulteress. She and her lover
are not to be killed, “because she has not been emancipated,” (Lev.
19:20-22). The law demands “damages” instead. The sexual act
itself was not “defiling,” otherwise there could not have been such
leniency on God’s part. The law in this case gives the reason for
leniency: she is a slave, not a wife. Thus “adultery” can be
committed only with, and by a woman who is free to “rebel”
against her husband. It is a property rights matter. In Scripture
adultery is primarily an offense against property. It is theft – whether
actual or intended – of another’s property.
An objective study of Biblical sex law makes one thing clear:
sexual practice was largely regulated by the principle of respect for
sexual property. God forbade what violates one’s personal sexual
property (thus forbidding rape, incest, and parents prostituting
their children), and sexual property belonging to others (thus
forbidding adultery and requiring restitution for “using” another
man’s slave.). Bestiality is forbidden evidently as inherently
abominable and unnatural. All other sex laws have to do with
honoring the personal rights of the other parties involved.
Property is an extension of the owner. To violate my property is
to violate my person. It is to steal something from me. In marriage,
104
violation of property rights by taking, or seeking to take a married
woman from her husband, is adultery. The notion of personal
sexual property formed the foundation of OT sexual ethics.
Impurity and dirtiness did not define sexual sin but “covetousness”
the desire to have something that belongs to someone else, did. Not
impurity and dirtiness, but disrespect for the rights of others
defined sexual sin. In other words, sexual practices were not
condemned because they were “filthy, unclean and dirty.” Sex acts
were condemned because they in some way hurt other people.
Take away this factor and you eliminate virtually all regulations
against sexual activity. That is, if a sex act does not in some way
harm another person, it is not of concern to God. It is a matter of
personal choice.
Deut. 20:5-7; 28:30, etc, equates acquisition of house, vineyard,
and wife. The wife, like these other possessions, became the
property of the husband and of the husband’s family as well. This
seems to be the logic of the Levirate marriage law which required
that if a man failed to impregnate his wife his brother was required
to do so. (cf. the previous chapter on “Polygamy”) If the brother
refused, it was a disgrace because he was setting his personal
desires above the good of the family, (Deut. 25:5-10).
In Israel, if another man had intercourse with a married woman
it constituted theft of her husband’s right to legitimate offspring.
Purity of physical lineage was crucial to inherited property rights,
preservation of the family name, and Messianic lineage. To corrupt
this in any way was a gravely serious issue. Thus the OT law
against adultery applied only to a man having sex with a married
woman, because this act threatened her husband’s lineage. And a
man could not commit adultery against his own wife, because she
had no claim to him as her property. A man could copulate with as
many women as he desired without ever corrupting his family
lineage. So for a man to have sex with many women was not an
issue, as long as he did not copulate with another married woman. If
he copulated with a different woman every night for a month, and
only the last woman was married, then he committed adultery only
with the last woman. Adultery was an issue only with a married
woman. A married woman committed adultery if she ever had sex
with any other man, under any conditions. Yeah, I know: “Where’s
the equality in that?” With Jesus’ alteration to this situation, the
woman became equal property owner of the husband thereby
105
gaining the same privileges in sexual matters as he has. Granting
equal status to both husband and wife did not shackle both of them
with prohibitions against privileges that were available to the man
in OT law. It had the effect of opening to both man and woman the
same sexual privileges. We discuss this in detail below.
Adultery compromised the continuity of the family lineage.
Having legitimate, tribal heirs was a primary concern to Israelite
culture. This is why an Israelite man hesitated to marry a nonvirgin.
It was not that she was “defiled” or “dirty.” It was because
she might possibly be pregnant with a child that would be outside
the man’s pure lineage. It was for this same reason that a man did
not want his wife to have intercourse with another man. Not that
the sex act itself was sinful but that it threatened the purity of the
lineage and put in question legitimate inheritance of family wealth.
Take away these factors and adultery becomes a non-issue when a
man has sex with another man’s wife or if the wife has sex with
another man. If a sex act ceases to be a situation where a man’s wife
is being taken from him, or his rights to legitimate offspring are
threatened, or inheritance of family wealth is not compromised, or
Messianic lineage is not being compromised, then the act of sex
with the mate of another becomes something other than adultery.
Regardless of how we might otherwise define it, it is not adultery. It
may be good, bad or indifferent, but it is not adultery. A married
man, under OT law, could have sex with virtually any other
woman who was not already married. It was not adultery for him
to do so because the above circumstances were not a factor in his
actions. Adultery was a factor only when sexual intercourse
involved a married woman. It was always adultery for a married
woman to copulate with any other man. It was never adultery for a
married man to copulate with anyone other than his wife, unless
the other woman was married.
The 7th Commandment, prohibiting adultery, is in proximity to
that of theft, (Ex. 20:14,15). One is forbidden to covet his neighbor’s
house or wife or servant or ox or ass or other property, (Ex. 20:17).
Adultery refers to a man taking, or desiring to take, a married woman
from her husband. This concept of adultery is strange to the
Western world but only because we have adopted concepts that
suit our own cultural setting and that flow from our polluted
doctrinal inheritance. We understand adultery to be sexual activity
outside the marriage by either spouse. But OT teaching proves that
106
a woman who was another man’s property must not violate his
property rights, yet the same man could have sex with a single
woman, a prostitute, another wife, a concubine, a slave, a divorced
woman or a widow, without committing adultery. This fact proves
beyond doubt that the sex act alone does not breach marital status and
is not adultery.
We moderns define adultery as “betrayal of trust,” but the Bible
never does so. Scripture teaches adultery is theft of another man’s
property, or rebellion against covenant commitment. This is true even in
the NT. Jesus redefined adultery such that both the husband and
the wife could commit adultery against each other. In the NT the
woman owns her husband just as he owns her, (cf. 1 Cor. 7:3,4). So
his sexual freedom is no greater than hers. They share “equal
opportunity” both with each other, and with others. In Jesus’
teaching adultery is defined such that its nature was in divorcing
one’s spouse and marrying another without sufficient reason. This
was to discard one’s wife without consideration to her rights to him
as her property. He was destroying her rights to possess her
property. He also broke the covenant bond of permanency – i.e.
“until death do us part.”
So with Jesus and NT authors, intention becomes the main thing.
Even in the “looking at a woman to lust after her,” it is the intention
Jesus deals with. It is not the “looking” that is adultery, but it is the
intention to take away the man’s property and have it as his own; to
break up the marriage and marry the woman whom he “covets.”
This is why polygamy was not an issue with God. God’s
concern has never been with “who is having sex with whom, and
how?” For a man to have several sex partners was never a matter of
adultery, even if a Solomon had 1,000 sex partners, always
available. In the NT the same privilege remains for the man simply
because God never took it away. But now, because woman is
sexually and maritally equal with man this privilege is open for the
woman also. Since God did not change His law and did not forbid
polygamy in the NT, it remains a freedom for a man to marry many
wives, have several concubines and even visit prostitutes, without
the sin of adultery. Such multiple relationships were not sin in the
OT and are not classified as sin in the NT. Since man and woman
become equal in NT ethics God makes it possible for woman now
to enjoy the same privileges that were once open only to a man.
Rather than destroying a man’s former privileges and bringing him
107
down to a lower level, Jesus raises woman up to the man’s previous
level. What constitutes adultery in Jesus’ teaching is not having sex
with someone other than one’s spouse, but it is divorcing and
remarrying without just cause. It is getting rid of one’s mate– breaking
marriage covenant – that constitutes adultery in His example. It is
rebelling against the covenant vow to live together “until death do
us part.”
Purity of physical lineage is no longer an issue in marital sex.
Messianic lineage is no longer an issue. And it is obvious that
copulating with multiple partners was never a moral issue with
God. Thus it seems clear that since God does not change the basic
structure of sexual license for the man, woman’s privilege now is
the same as his – across the board. A man may have sexual
pleasure with another woman but he may not prohibit his wife
from enjoying the same pleasure with another man. Property rights
– the right to expect the husband/wife to remain husband/wife
and not seek divorce – remain intact. Covenant commitment – mutual
vows to be married until death – remain intact. Having sex with
other partners does not automatically threaten the marriage bond.
Neither husband nor wife is free to divorce their mate in order to
pursue other mates. This could be done in the OT. A man who was
not rich enough to have more than one wife could divorce her and
marry another. The change made by Jesus is that now mates must
remain married to each other and make their sexual practices fit
with their absolute commitment to remain married until death
separates them. The point is that Biblically nothing changed
relative to a man having sex with another woman than his wife.
What changed was Jesus opening to the wife equal privileges with
the husband. In NT ethics “marital fidelity” is not defined as sexual
exclusivity; it is defined as “fidelity” to mutual property rights, and
to covenant vows of lifetime marriage.
To protect both husband and wife Jesus prohibited divorce for
either husband or wife except on the grounds of covenantal
unfaithfulness. What breaks covenant is reason for divorce. What
does not break covenant is not valid reason for divorce. If vows
were made concerning sexual exclusivity those vows must be kept.
But since such vows were made, not by God’s requirement but by
man’s invention, they can be altered by mutual consent. If they are
altered so as to eliminate the demands for sexual exclusivity then
108
sexual non-exclusivity cannot break marriage, and cannot be the
basis of either divorce or adultery.
The basis of marriage is lifetime commitment to each other.
Sexual intercourse with another person does not imply anything
about that commitment. Adultery in the mind and in actuality, is
either the desire or the actual attempt to end a marriage where there
has been no breach of covenant. God demands that a man and
woman not attempt to sever their marriage ties unless their mate
has been unfaithful to their original vows. Biblical vows evidently
included only that they would remain married for life. If evidence
arose that one mate was attempting to rob the other of his/her
property by severing the marriage bond it became grounds for
divorce by the innocent party. Jesus makes this a valid reason for
divorce and remarriage (Matt. 5:32ff; 19:9ff; Mk. 10:1ff; Lk. 16:18ff).
He was not talking about one mate having sex with someone other
than his/her mate. He was talking about desiring, planning or
attempting to undo the life long commitment they made to each
other. The appropriate and Biblically provable definition of “adultery”
is “severing or attempting to sever the marriage bond.” Doing so,
even in thought, “adulterates” the bond, lessens it, destroys it.
In Jesus’ statement about divorce and remarriage, two
significant facts appear.
[1. Jesus said if a man divorces his wife except for cause of
unfaithfulness he “makes her commit adultery,” (Mt. 5:32). How can
this be so? The woman in this case has obviously not had sex with
another man. So if “adultery” is “having sex with someone other
than one’s spouse,” how do we make sense of this statement? Since
the woman is innocent in this case, it is not possible that the mere act of
divorcing her has somehow made her guilty of having sex with
another man!
The Greek word here is moixeuthenai (aorist tense, passive
voice). The form of this word is intriguing in that the passive voice
puts the woman, not in a position of doing something, but of
something being done to her. What is said here is that the woman in
this case has been forcibly made a participant, not in a sex act, but
in “marriage breaking.” Beck’s translation says, “makes her a
partner in adultery.” Tyndale’s translation says, “causeth her to
break matrimony.” This makes the matter plain. Adultery is “the
act of breaking marriage.” The case cited above forces the woman
against her will, to become a party to marriage breaking. And any
109
man that marries her is also forced to participate in “marriage
breaking.” Neither of them are guilty of illicit sex. The situation of
unjustifiable divorce has broken marriage illegitimately, and this is
what God considers “adultery.” The woman has “been made to
participate in marriage breaking.” Sex has nothing to do with it.
[2. Adultery, in Jesus’ words, does not mean “sex with someone
other than one’s spouse.” Jesus defines “adultery” in His own
words as “divorcing one’s wife without legitimate reason.” As we
have been saying, this demonstrates that “adultery” is the intention
or the actual act of “breaking marriage bond.” If the marriage bond
is not broken, i.e. if the “partnership” is neither threatened nor
destroyed, then “adultery” is not an issue regardless of what sex
has been participated in. If sexual activity has been enjoyed with a
man other than this woman’s husband yet there was no intention to
break the marriage, then the sex act did not break the marriage.
Again we say emphatically, adultery is not a sex act. One may have
sex with many partners and never even come close to committing
adultery just as occurred in thousands of instances in the OT. If we
can get our definitions right then we can get our thinking and our
theology right.
God never voiced displeasure with multiple wives or
concubines or even prostitution. God did demand that when a man
married a woman he remain married to her and never allow her to
be thought of as less than other women in his life. He is
commanded to rejoice in the wife of his youth, (Prov. 5:18), that is,
treat her with the honor, dignity and favor she deserves as his first
and most highly cherished wife. It doesn’t exclude other wives or
concubines. It demands that a man give priority to his relationship
with his first wife. This requires that he not demean her, neglect
her, deprive her of sexual pleasure, etc. It also means that he must
not seek to get rid of her in order to marry other wives.
We mentioned the importance of intent in this issue. NT teaches
that it is not the act itself that is sin so much as the motive that
drives it. In the statement, “he that looks upon a woman to lust after her
has committed adultery already with her in his heart,” (Matt. 5:27, 28),
the sin is neither in the looking nor in sexual desire. The sin is “to
lust after.” The words refer to covetousness. This is, looking with the
intention to possess what belongs to someone else. Adultery is
present in intention even when it is not enacted. This infers that
where sexual thoughts and even sexual actions are exercised
110
without the intention of taking another’s property then neither the
sexual thoughts nor the act itself is adultery. If both mates agreed that a
wife was free to copulate with someone other than her husband
then doing so would not be adultery. If there was no intention to
possess the woman for oneself and take her away from her
husband it would not be adultery even if they have sexual
intercourse. A woman may set her eyes on another man and plan a
way to take him away from his wife and have him for herself. This
is adultery even in the thought. But if the desire is only for sexual
pleasure then it does not qualify as adultery for the intent to deprive
another is not there. And as with other possessions, a man may
“lend” his tools, car, boat, etc. to other people with perfect
propriety. Borrowing is not stealing and it does not deprive the
owner of his property. But if a man enters his neighbor’s garage at
night and takes his tools against his will it is theft. A man must be
allowed to exercise control over what belongs to him. To do
otherwise is theft. No one suspects that a neighbor desires to steal
his car, boat, tools, etc. if the neighbor asks to borrow them. And for
one to desire to borrow his neighbor’s property in no way
compromises the neighbor’s sole rights to that property. Others can
use it only by permission of the owner. But the owner does have the right
to allow others to use it. The same principle is true of both men and
women in marriage. They each possess the other’s body. They have
equal rights, and sole rights to the sexual favors of their mate. A
husband may have intercourse with another woman if his wife will
allow another woman to “borrow” her property. And a wife can
have intercourse with another man if her husband is willing for
another man to “borrow” his property. If mutual consent prevails,
sexual non-exclusivity in no way breaks the marriage bond.
“Outrageous?” No, it is Biblical. Just go back again to the OT and
read the hundreds of examples.
The idea that “I do not want to share my mate with anyone
else,” suggests that something is lost if one’s mate has sex with
another person. The reality is otherwise. There remains as much
sexual pleasure available to the mate as before. Nothing is
diminished or lost unless there is intent to end the marriage.
Otherwise it is nothing more than sexual pleasure, the same as it
was enjoyed by Abraham, Jacob, Judah, Gideon, Samson, David,
Solomon, etc. Can we get it in our mind that sex, in and of itself,
has no moral quality? Sex is a biological function. We have stated that
111
sex in humans is of no more moral consequence than is sex in
animals. It is only when sex is used in such a way that others are
harmed or their personal rights are disregarded that sex becomes
wrong. God’s laws for sex relate directly to this one issue. No one is
allowed to try to steal my wife from me or me from her. My wife is
not free to ditch me so she can marry someone else and I cannot
divorce her so I can remarry. Even the desire to do so is adultery.
Our vows to be united for life are God’s required vows. Having sex
with another person is not a part of that equation except when it
breaches one partner’s sole ownership of his/her mate’s body. If
either or both mates grant permission and freedom then sexual
experience may be enjoyed with other people. It no more threatens
their marriage bond than borrowing one’s tools threatens the
owner’s possession of them.
Wives of OT saints did not “share” their husbands with other
women for they lost nothing by their husband’s sexual activities
with other women. If a wife has sex with another man the husband
has not “shared” her with the other man. He still “possesses” his
wife as his own and he still has as much of her sexual favors as he
desires plus all other marital blessings. If a woman’s husband has
sex with another woman the wife has not “shared” him with the
other woman. She still “possesses” her husband as her own and she
still has as much of his sexual favors, protection, provision, etc. as
before. In either case the husband and wife must not diminish the
sexual pleasure desired by their mates. If they exercise themselves
sexually outside the marriage they must be faithful to the needs of
their mates at all times. These things said, there is no reason for
men not to enjoy the same sexual advantages now that God’s
holiest men did in OT. And since women are now sexual equals
with men there is every reason to liberate them, inform them of
their privileges, and release them to take advantage of their sexual
freedom and enjoy this wonderful pleasure to their full satisfaction.
Men have always had this privilege (in spite of church dogma). Are
we “man enough” to grant it to our women?
We do realize that this sounds radical. But we encourage
readers to reflect again on the fact that this very situation prevailed
in OT Israel with God’s approval, with the exception that only the man
could enjoy this privilege and that he enjoyed it whether or not the
wife approved! How, when and why does it become “crude”
“lascivious” “promiscuous” etc. to continue the same freedom for
112
the husband but now open it also to the wife? In other words how
could it be a blessing for the man then but a curse for the woman now?
How can we accuse God of vulgarity and other such accusations by
implying that He should never have sanctioned these very
situations? And how can we think we have a better concept of
sexual propriety than God does? If we can get it in our minds that
adultery is to deprive another of their property we will cease to have
difficulties with this subject. The advantage granted by the ethics of
the NT is that now the woman has a voice in this whole arena and she
has the same sexual liberty as her husband. A parallel to this is the
raising of woman to the same spiritual status of the man so that she
can now exercise leadership in the church equally with the man.
What was not generally allowable in OT is now allowable in this
area. So it is with sexual liberty. Only the man could enjoy sexual
liberty then. Since God did not eliminate that freedom it remains
for the man. But because the gospel liberates woman and raises her
to the same status as man, now the woman can also enjoy the same
sexual liberty that man has always enjoyed. Man was not brought
down; woman was brought up.
What difference does this concept make? We believe that
marriages by the thousands can be saved if husband and wife can
accept the facts that sexual desire is natural and clean and that desire
for sexual pleasure is as normal now as it was in the OT. The desire
for more sexual pleasure is no more “perverted” or “unnatural” or
“unholy” than is the desire for more food! A husband’s appetite for
more food does not threaten the wife just because she does not
desire more. A wife’s desire for another helping does not threaten
the husband just because he is already full. It is no more sinful or
unclean today for men to desire sex with many women than it was
for David, Solomon, Gideon, and all the rest. If it was good then it
cannot be evil now! And it is not sinful or unclean for women to
desire to have sex with more than one man. The sex act itself is not
an issue with God. What God protects is the relationship we have
with others. He demands that we respect their personal rights, their
property rights, and our/their mutual commitment to lifetime
marriage. God requires only that husbands and wives do not sever
their marriage ties in order to pursue sex with other partners. If the
commitment to marriage ties remain strong there is no prohibition
against, nor limit to each spouse enjoying the sexual favors of
113
others. It was so for men in the OT. It is so for both men and women
now.
Spouses should not feel threatened by the desire of their partner
to have sex with another person. It is literally as natural and
common as the desire for water. Such a desire is not a lack of love
for one’s mate. It is nothing more than a desire for additional sexual
pleasure. When David added wives to his harem it in no way
implied a loss of love for his previous wife/wives. Neither partner
should feel threatened by their spouse’s desire for sexual variety.
Sex is not love, it is pleasure. When combined with love sex is
intensified, but sexual intercourse does not inherently imply love. It
certainly does not imply love in the animal world. That a spouse
desires sexual pleasure with others does not mean he/she loves
their mate any less. The love and the marriage bond of life-long
commitment is still as strong as ever. But they have opened
themselves up to pleasure that God has explicitly allowed for
thousands of years. We would do well to cease referring to sexual
activity as “making love” because truthfully, it has nothing
inherently to do with “love.” We could more appropriately call it
“having pleasure,” “enjoying sex,” or whatever, and thereby
eliminate the thought that to engage in sex with a person means we
“love” that person. There is no more reason to equate love and sex,
than to equate a back-rub and love; eating together and love; etc.
Sex with one we love intensifies the enjoyment and emotion of sex.
But in the same way eating a meal with one we love makes the
meal more enjoyable than eating with relative strangers. Marriages
that are founded on sex rather than love will not endure beyond the
physical limitations of our bodies and our physical capacity for sex.
Marriage founded on love will remain strong despite whatever else
comes along. We can and should make the effort required to rid
ourselves of the junk that fills our minds because of life-long
misinformation heaped upon us “by them of old time.” We can
give our partners a wonderful gift by giving them the freedom to
use their sexual liberty in ways that will enhance their joy of living
and increase their fulfillment.
These things being said, it may now be apparent to wives, that
when their husband “checks out” a beautiful woman he is not
somehow being “mentally unfaithful” to her, or wishing he had
married someone else, or no longer thinks she is beautiful, or no
longer loves her, or....… If a husband looks appreciatively at
114
another woman the wife need not feel hurt as though she has
somehow become less in his eyes. If a husband enjoys looking at
photos of beautiful, nude women, the wife should not think he has
become perverted and that she is an unworthy wife. When
husbands show such proclivity for the beauty and sexuality of
other women it implies nothing about the worthiness, sexuality,
attractiveness or anything else, of the wife. She should absolutely
not feel the least bit threatened. All it means is that her husband
enjoys sex and beautiful women in the same way David, Abraham,
Solomon and other great saints did. Surely no one believes that
when a couple marry then suddenly all other women become
unattractive to the husband and all other men become unattractive
to the wife. Possessing a beautiful house does not suddenly cause
all other houses to become ugly. Husbands do not suddenly
become blind to beautiful women when they marry and wives do
not suddenly become blind to handsome men when they marry.
Once married, husbands and wives do not cease to have any sort of
sexual response to other attractive people. It is unrealistic for
married people to expect their mates to never again take a second
look at an attractive person of the opposite sex. And it is not
necessary for married people to feel they must choke off sexual
urges and desires that simply exist. They do not need to feel that
they must “protect my property at all cost,” and thereby deny the
one they love some sexual adventure and pleasure that is legitimate
for them. And those who desire to take advantage of their sexual
liberty should not feel guilty or ashamed or condemned because
they have that desire.
A man should not feel the least bit threatened if his wife looks a
second time at a handsome, well-built man. There is absolutely no
excuse for jealousy in such a situation. If she comments on how
good-looking he is the man should be able to agree and be glad his
wife is not cowed and in bondage to unrealistic opinions and
expectations. What a wonderful thing it would be if all men would
allow their wives to open their eyes and enjoy the normal delight of
looking appreciatively at the other sex. How can a man truly love
his wife and refuse to allow her to fully experience natural,
legitimate emotions? If a man’s wife looks at other men and acts in
a way so as to suggest she might be having sexual thoughts about
other men he should not feel the least bit threatened by it. If a wife
enjoys looking at photos of well-built, nude men, the husband
115
should not feel the least bit inadequate as a lover or fear that he is
no longer satisfying his wife. Such “looking” implies nothing about
her commitment to their marriage, and nothing at all about her
husband’s attractiveness, sexuality or anything else. All it means is
that his wife enjoys sex and handsome men in the same way David,
Abraham, Solomon and other great saints loved beautiful women.
It means that she has come out of her shell, has been able to
straighten up her bent back, lift her bowed shoulders and raise her
head and gladly and confidently begin to enjoy her equal status
with her husband. The husband who genuinely loves his wife, who
can understand what this means to women in general and his wife
in particular, will rejoice and thrill in his heart that his wife has thus
come to full freedom and is able to do what few women have ever
been free to do. The very nature of “love” is the desire to give to the
loved one all that will make them happy; to sacrifice for the sake of
happiness and satisfaction of the loved one. The husband who can
understand and accept this will rejoice that his wife can fully enjoy
her whole person – soul, spirit, and body. Such a husband must be
very confident in himself and in his wife’s love for him. And a wife
who is offered such freedom should be able to see in it a gift of
supreme love and trust from a husband who desires for her
everything that she is able to enjoy and who trusts in her complete
devotion to him. Rather than being suspicious of his possible
“ulterior motives” she should see his gift to her of sexual liberty as
doubtless the greatest gift he is able to give her and to deeply
appreciate it as such and to demonstrate her appreciation by using
the gift! For a wife to extend to her husband such sexual freedom as
we have discussed requires a wife whose love for her husband rises
above suspicion, fear, jealousy and possessiveness and motivates
her to grant to him the liberty to enjoy everything that he can
legitimately enjoy. And she must trust in his complete devotion to
her. A husband who receives such a gift from his wife must surely
realize the great love she demonstrates in giving him the greatest
gift she is able to give him. He must be aware of the tremendous
depth of trust she has in him. Such a mutual gift of sexual liberty is
perhaps the clearest demonstration possible, of a couple’s mutual
commitment to the full growth and development of their partner.
If a married couple can overcome the mountainous hurdle that
has been placed before them in the opinions, traditions and cultural
standards of society and an ignorant church; if they can transcend
116
the fallacy that sex with anyone other than their spouse is utterly
forbidden, they are poised to begin exciting adventures together
heretofore unimaginable. They can go places together, do things
together, watch things together, talk about things together that will
enhance their enjoyment of life, of other people, and of each other.
If they have committed together to remain married no matter what
and then grant the gift of sexual freedom to their mate, they can do
nothing else that is so unselfish and so full of love and trust.
Jesus said, “the truth will makes us free.” Digging through the
morass of misinformation, traditional interpretation, doctrinal
error, prejudicial opinions, high minded dogmatism and outright
contempt for legitimate Biblical truth is a formidable task. But
finding Biblical truth is worth any effort required. We believe that
if people will sincerely study Biblical truth (rather than read it
superficially), and can accept Biblical truth (rather than yielding to
fear of breaching prevailing opinions), and are willing to think
through and draw correct conclusions for themselves from Biblical
truth, then they can step into sexual freedom with none of the
illegitimate baggage that would otherwise plague them. This takes
courage and determination. But the sexual freedom they gain for
themselves, and grant to each other would be so wonderful as to
make the price seem insignificant by comparison.
May women now, as men once did, experience the full freedom
of their equal status with men. And may men gladly grant to their
wives all the freedom that they should rightfully enjoy. May all
husbands and wives proceed together with gladness into the liberty
made possible by truth.
May they never again be shackled by unbiblical doctrines and
opinions of men.
Additional note on Rom. 7:1-4, relating to “adultery.”
Paul references the OT code regulating marriage from the
“patriarchal, wife-as-possession” perspective unique to the
cultural/national/messianic hope environment in which that code
was given. Referencing this code makes maximum impact upon
his Jewish readers for the purpose of helping them recognize his
point about being freed from the OT code entirely, (vs. 4). Thus, “I
am speaking to those who know the law,” (vs. 1). To reference this code
does not establish it as regulative for NT believers, any more than
to reference any OT ceremonial/sacrifice/holy day code would
117
become regulative for Christians. Jesus ended the law’s rule over
believers (Rom. 10:4). This emphatic statement from the Holy Spirit
ends any validity to arguments that the OT law is regulative for our
conduct in any way.
But this very truth is stated in the very text of Rom. 7:1-4. Verse.
4 is transparently clear: “You were made to die to the law through the
body of Christ.” Then Paul says, “Now we have been released from the
law, having died to that by which we were bound,” (vs. 6). Likewise, “if
the husband dies she is released form the law of the husband” (vs.
2) and “if her husband dies she is free from the law,” (vs. 3). The entire
section is written specifically to prove that our spiritual death with
Christ (Rom. 6:1ff) has ended our relationship to law, and it never
again can “bind” us to its rules, restrictions and penalties.
So Paul’s use of this OT law of “adultery” is an appeal to their
understanding of how that code operated for as long as they were
under it, in order to demonstrate that they had been set entirely free
from law by the death of Christ. Their freedom from the rule of law
was just as total as a widow’s freedom from a dead husband.
Regardless of what harsh laws he may have laid down, how severe
his treatment of her, or how controlling he might be, once he is
dead the widow owes no more allegiance to him or his laws. We
feel pity for a widow who cannot escape the emotional scars left by
a harsh, demanding husband. Yet spiritually, we find millions of
believers doing the same thing relative to the law, their dead
spiritual husband. We must walk away from all vestiges of that
former relationship and never look back. The law is dead. We are
set free. Our new Husband, Jesus, demands only that we “love God
with our whole heart, and love our neighbor as we love ourselves,” (Matt.
22:36-38). His “new commandment” is that we love each other just as
He has loved us, (Jn. 13:34; 15L12, 17; 1 Jn. 2:7f 3:11, 23; 2 Jn. 5). If
we will love God and neighbor, we fulfill all commandments God
ever gave, (Rom. 13:8, 10). Thus Christ’s one new commandment
has effectively replaced all God’s former individual
commandments. This includes all God’s commandments about sex.
We are not under that old husband’s rule anymore. We are under
the rule of our New Husband, Jesus. His law about sex and
everything else is singular: “In sexual matters do nothing that will
harm others. This will fulfill all God’s previous laws about sex.”
118
To return to Rom. 7 then, the OT “code of marriage” is a part of
that which we “are made free from,” (vs. 4). Therefore the “wife as
possession” regulative principle no longer exists. All NT believers
are “made free from” that law. Since the death and resurrection of
Jesus, marriage no longer makes a wife the property of her
husband. Therefore all the regulations that served to enforce that
concept, have no validity. The heart of that concept having been
killed, the extremities must also die.
It should go without saying, but we will say it anyway: that
code never eliminated God’s prima facie acceptance of polygamy and
concubinage. The God who gave that marriage code, still accepted
multiple sexual relationships. Paul does not attempt to explore the
ramifications of the OT marriage code. His sole interest is to
establish the basic OT principle of “bondage” of a woman to man in
marriage for the purpose of illustrating how NT believers are freed
from all such bondage, to be joined to Christ in a life of liberty.
Paul did not mention the fact that even under that code, one
could divorce his wife and marry another, but a wife could not thus
divorce her husband to marry another. Divorce and remarriage, in
OT, was a one sided privilege: for the man only. In making divorce
a privilege for the woman also, Jesus opened to her the same
advantages the man always had.
Paul himself, in 1 Cor. 7:15, releases a woman from “bondage”
to a husband who merely leaves her. He is still living, yet she is
“free.” Thus re-marriage is an option for her with no fear of
“adultery.” Paul’s point here demonstrates that his use of Rom. 7:4
is from the OT perspective for the sole purpose of persuading Jews
of the abrogation of the law. It is not, in any sense, an attempt to
enforce as an eternal, universal law what God mandated only in the
temporary setting of Jewish patriarchy.
We have no justification for trying to apply the OT law of
marriage to NT believers in such a way that we bind NT believers
to something even that OT law did not bind them to. Paul’s use of
this code cannot possibly be employed in a way that goes beyond
the bounds of its original OT application. Nor can his use of this
code contradict his own revelation that saints are set free from that
very code. Since OT law allowed multiple sexual relationships then
it is “unlawful” to use that law in an attempt to outlaw multiple
sexual relationships today. Paul’s use is in strict harmony with OT
application: he deals solely with the “woman” side of the issue to
119
make his point about being free from the law. Any use of OT
marriage code by NT believers must necessarily incorporate Jesus’
alteration of its basic regulation of women.
The “Open Marriage”
It is unfortunate that we no not have a good word to describe
the sexual activity of married couples who mutually agree to
enlarge their “circle of love” to include others in their sexual
activity. By now we can see that the word “adultery” is utterly
inappropriate to describe this activity. “Infidelity” is also
inappropriate, inasmuch as neither partner is being “unfaithful” to
the other. Both have agreed to explore sexuality with others than
their marital partners. As such, extra-marital sex becomes in fact a
manifestation of their true “fidelity” to each other; a demonstration
of their strong trust in each other and their mutual delight in the
spiritual, emotional and sexual growth and fulfillment of their
partners. Infidelity, like adultery, is much more involved than mere
sexual behavior. It is an issue of constriction of love; false security,
dishonesty; mistreatment, deception and general lack of respect for
the other’s person-hood. It grows out of suffocating possessiveness
which is life-destroying. Infidelity is manifested in many ways
other than in a sexual sense. It is a lack of trust and honesty. It is
based on fear of the other, and uncertainty about oneself. It shows a
disregard for truth, integrity and trustworthiness.
The open-ended marriage respects the integrity of the other
mate and values sexual liberty. Infidelity is as much an issue with
those who pursue open marriage as is adultery. Open marriage
advocates are careful to protect their primary relationship with
each other. They are committed to their vows of permanency and
mutual nurturing. Each works at encouraging the growth and
fulfillment of the other. Both partners are sensitive to the need for
truth and honesty in their sexual practices and in all other aspects
of their relationship. And at the same time they refuse to constrict
themselves and their partners to exclusive intimacy.
It is ironic and hypocritical for courts to grant divorce on the
grounds of “adultery” while refusing to accept and honor the
testimony of couples who wish divorce on the grounds of mutual
incompatibility, unhappiness, or on irreconcilable infidelity in the
broader non-sexual sense. Such incongruity often consigns people
120
to enduring hellish conditions in an exploded relationship, on the
theory that only “adultery” (restricted meaning: sex with another
than one’s mate) makes divorce acceptable. This ignores the reality
that many more lives are destroyed by the non-sexual lying,
deceiving, conniving, hurtful behavior of mates, than is the case
with “sexual infidelity.”
Open marriages are monogamous: the couple maintains a
primary one-to-one relationship based on mutual commitment and
intended to last a lifetime. But it does not exclude the possibility of
other intimate and sexual friendships. It may or may not involve
formal “marriage” (i.e. license, minister, public ceremony). We
understand that there are risks and challenges involved in open
ended marriages. But so are there risks in traditionally
monogamous marriages. But there are a significant number of men
and women who are ready and eager to face those challenges and
take those risks because they know that a more joyful and loving
marital lifestyle is possible and attainable. Open-ended marriage
promotes risk-taking in trust. It encourages the warmth and joy of
loving without anxiety. It fosters the extension of affection beyond
only one person in the universe. It proclaims the excitement and
pleasure of knowing a variety of persons in a sensual way. It
experiences the enrichment that a variety of personalities can
contribute to each other. Open marriage makes it possible to be
fully alive in every encounter with other people.
Christians desperately need an ethic of sex for enjoyment,
pleasure and interpersonal enrichment, all of which aligns with the
“goodness” of sex as God created it and as it is seen practiced
throughout the Bible. We need to discard the non-biblical notion
that sex is utterly forbidden except to married people and only for
purposes of reproduction. The subject of sexuality is so frightening
and threatening that few parents, educators or church leaders are
willing to do the hard work of trying to understand what the Bible
actually says about it and then allowing sex to have an unhindered
place in the human experience. If we could arrive at a sex ethic for
pleasure along the lines suggested by the Song of Solomon for
instance, it might include at least the following:
1. Consistently positive attitudes toward sexual pleasure.
2. Eradication of the double standard as harmful to both male
and female sexuality.
121
3. Learning methods of non-coital mutual orgasm as a birth
control option and as forms of enjoyable and healthy sex.
4. Openly joyful celebration of the human body and all its
sexual possibilities, with none of the hiddeness, shame and guilt
that currently shrouds human sexuality.
5. Education that values and encourages personal responsibility
and decision making, with integrity, sensitivity and love for the
other person.
6. Honest, non-judgmental information about options for
relational styles and modes of sexual behavior.
7. Enjoyment of what “turns one on” sexually without judging
those whose personal choices do not coincide with ours.
Traditional monogamy is in a crisis. It has been cheapened by
the double standard, is mocked by the high divorce rate and is
seriously threatened by the incredible weight of the functions it is
forced to serve. Parents and children teeter on the beguilingly
frosted tiers of unrealistic expectations, and many of them crumble
under the weight of failed expectations. We expect too much of
ourselves, of each other, of the community and of the fragile
complexity of marital and family obligations. To attempt to be all
things to each other at all times and under all circumstances is to
beg for defeat. We can begin the reparative work by teaching our
children the truth about the pain, frustration, agonies and puzzles
of married life. We must not shield them from the truth that they
will love and live in the midst of crises and tragedies that will make
their loving and living difficult. We can attempt to pull the fangs of
jealousy by truthfully telling them that their self-esteem and
confidence in self and others is in no wise damaged or threatened
by the naturally human desire to reach out intimately to other
people. We can help them immensely by teaching them that they
can be sexually faithfully to each other while at the same time
giving each other the freedom to explore openness and sexual
intimacy with others. In short, our young people have the right to
know that there is an option for their desire for a stable, long-term
relationship. Traditional monogamy is acceptable for all who desire
it. But the option is open for all who wish to explore the openended
marriage.
122
Open marriages preserve the values and commitments of
traditional monogamy while overcoming its main limitation –
sexual exclusivity. There are many who do not automatically
equate sexual exclusivity with marital fidelity. Repudiating the
double standard, they enjoy intimacy, sensuality and often sex with
other friends. With no shame and with full trust in each other, the
partners in an open marriage enrich each other through their
mutual gift of sexual liberty, through encouragement to each other
to learn and grow sexually and through delight in each other’s joy
in loving other people. Their loving of others does not diminish
love for each other. Rather, it opens new vistas of love that only
enrich their mutual love and commitment. Open marriage offers
the possibility of a vibrant, committed monogamy that also
embraces the being of other persons, sharing with them the grace of
human caring and touch.
Finally, those who decide to pursue open-ended marriage must
be prepared for the social consequence. Most of those who learn of
your practice will not be able to exercise sympathy with your
lifestyle. Our cultural/religious training virtually prohibits most
people from seeing the morality of sex with someone other than
one’s spouse. “Infidelity,” “adultery,” “promiscuity,” “sick,”
“immoral,” “degenerate” and other such words will be the staples
of choice for accusers, judges and finger pointers. Traditional
morality focuses so much on the act that it can make no room for
relationships that are not sexually exclusive. Traditional morality
focuses on the number of sexual partners without reference to the
more important matter of the quality of relationship. Those who
practice open marriage must be prepared to be judged as immoral,
blasphemous and degenerates. But perhaps it will help to know
that this places you in the same category as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob,
David and a host of other mighty saints. In our society they would
be judged as severely, with the same epithets. But God accepted
them and their non-sexually-exclusive practices. If it is good
enough to pass God’s inspection why worry overmuch about
passing human inspection? We trust that we have demonstrated
that what God defines as “adultery” does not fit at all the practice
of including others into the circle of our commitment to each other
as a couple-married-for-life. We have demonstrated that the most
godly of Biblical saints did not practice sexual exclusivity within their
marriages. This is simply an indisputable matter of the Biblical
123
record. We can safely follow their example without fear of
committing “adultery.” And our lives can be wonderfully
enhanced by mutually granted sexual liberty without the
judgmental baggage heaped upon it by an ignorant and prejudicial
church and society.
124
CHAPTER SIX
LUST OF THE EYES
No study of sex and the Bible can be complete unless the issue
of “lust of the eyes” is addressed. This phrase, from 1 Jn. 2:16,
denotes a sinful, worldly longing for something one sees, but has
no right to possess. It is used regularly by church leaders and
laymen alike in reference to any “sexual gaze” that is anything
other than married persons looking at their mate. If a single guy
looks with sexual desire at a woman he intends to marry, this is
“lust of the eyes” and is unhesitatingly condemned in the church as
sin. If a married man looks at a beautiful woman other than his
wife, with anything that approaches appreciation for her sexual
beauty, it is “lust of the eyes” and sinful. The church is virtually
unanimous in condemning all non-marital sexual “looking” as
sinful. Naturally this makes all nude photos, statues, painting,
sketches, etc. sinful regardless of the context in which they appear,
or the attitude that prevails in the mind of the “looker.”
“Pornography” is the cousin of “lust of the eyes” for it is this ”lust”
that forms the sole basis for the existence of pornography. At least
that is what we are taught. But “it ain’t necessarily so.” It depends
on what the Bible actually means by the phrase “lust of the eyes,”
and also requires a correct perception of what exactly constitutes
“pornography.”
Once again, our concern is not to search out modern concepts of
this issue. We seek to know what the Bible is condemning when it
condemns “lust of the eyes” as a “work of the flesh” and a
characteristic of the “world.” Our first search path, again, is the
definition of the actual words used in the Bible. For this study, we
will consider “lust” as well as several related words. This will be
interesting. Follow us.
DEFINITION OF WORDS:
Lascivious;
“licentiousness, filthy, lasciviousness, wantonness.” “Unashamed
indulgence, unrestrained depravity, sinning in contempt of public
morals, arrogantly defiant of moral restraints.” (Strong’s #766)
“Gk. Aselgeia: excess, immoderation in anything; licentiousness,
wantonness.” (A Critical Lexicon to the English and Greek New
Testament, E. W. Bullinger, p.441)
125
Unclean;
Gk. Akatharsos: ” impurity, physical or moral, filthiness, foul.”
(Strong’s #’s167, 168, 169).
Lust, Evil desire;
Heb. Hamad:
”covet, desire, long, lust.” (Strong’s #183)
“delight in, delectable thing, desire, lust.” (Strong’s #2530)
”appetite, pleasure.” (Strong’s #5315)
“twisted, firm, obstinate, imagination, lust.” (Strong’s #8307)
“a longing, delight, satisfaction, desire exceedingly, greedily, lust.”
(Strong’s #8378)
Gk. Epithumia: “to set the heart upon, long for, covet, desire, would
fain, lust, crave.” (Strong’s #1937, 1938, 1939)
“to dote upon, intensely crave possession, earnestly desire, greatly
long after.” (Strong’s #1971)
“sensual delight, desire, lust, pleasure.” (Strong’s #2237)
“excitement of the mind; longing after, lust.” (Strong’s #3715)
“passion, inordinate affection, lust.” (Strong’s #3806)
“The word “lust” has become more narrow in meaning since the
time of KJV; the RSV generally reserves the terms for passionate
evil desires, usually sexual. As in English, the Greek term is of wide
meaning, with particular meaning dependent on the context. It can
represent any strong desire, including those that are sinful and
those that are not (Lk. 22:15; Phil. 1:23; 1Thess. 2:17) and can be as
broad as ‘materialism’ (Mk. 4:19; Rev. 18:14) or as specific as sexual
passion or obsession (Mt. 5:28; Rom. 1:24; 1 Thess. 4:5).”
Eerdman’s Bible Dictionary, pg. 668
“Both the Heb. and Gk. indicate strong desire; the bad sense of
evil desire is present only in certain contexts.”
ISBE, vol. 1, pg. 797, 798
“1… epithumia, what is directed toward anything, desire which
attaches itself to or upon its object. It is used exclusively of sinful
desire, which corresponds to man’s depraved nature. The inward
passion of concupicence. 2. orexis, a reaching after, the appetite and
tendency toward the external object. No. 1 is only the mental
desire; No. 2 has conjoined with it the notion of the thing desired.
No. 1 may therefore be used absolutely, as in Rom. 7:7 and 8:9, but
126
No. 2 never. Hedone, pleasure, gratification, enjoyment, pathos,
suffering, passion (of affection or love). Epithumeo, to fix the desire
upon, to have the affections directed towards anything (of unlawful
desires). Epipotheo, to desire upon, i.e. over and above, to desire
earnestly, long for. (Bullinger, p. 472)
“Epithumia denotes strong desire of any kind, the various kinds
being specified by some adjective. It is used of a good desire in Lk.
22:15; Phil. 1:23; 1 Thess. 2:17 only. Everywhere else it has a bad
sense. In Rom. 6:12 the injunction against letting sin reign in our
mortal body to obey the lusts thereof, refers to those evil desires
which are ready to express themselves in bodily activity. They are
equally the lusts of the flesh…a phrase which describes the
emotions of the soul, the natural tendency towards things evil.
Such lusts are necessarily base and immoral, they may be refined in
character, but are evil if inconsistent with the will of God.”
(Expository Dictionary of New testament Words, W.E. Vine, part 3, pg.
25)
So we know that “lust” is usually very bad, and that “lustful
looking” is sinful looking. But unless we know more than these two
facts, we know nothing useful about what God wants us to avoid in
this regard. Let’s look at the actual texts that deal with this subject.
Scripture References:
Job makes a covenant with his eyes: “why should I gaze upon a
young woman?” (Job. 31:1). Obviously this is looking with sexual
desire.
“If you see a beautiful woman and desire her…” Deut. 21:11. Quite
obviously, this is sexual desire sparked by the woman’s physical
beauty and it is approved by God and indeed provided for in His
law. So how does this shed light on “if a man look upon a woman to
lust after her…” (Mt. 5:27, 28). How is this different from “lust of the
eyes?” Why is one forbidden, and the other accepted? In view of the
prima facie acceptance of polygamy in the OT, what about a married
man who looks upon a beautiful unmarried woman, is sexually
attracted to her, and desires her for a second wife? Since this
occurred thousands of times in the OT, with God’s approval, it is
obvious that this does not constitute “lust of the eyes” or “committing
127
adultery in one’s heart.” It should already be apparent that “lust of the
eyes” is something more than looking with sexual appreciation.
“Do not commit adultery. But I say whoever looks upon a woman to
lust after her has committed adultery against her already in his heart,”
(Mt. 5:27ff). Is this the definition of “lust of the eyes?” Does one
commit this sin when one merely looks at a woman with sexual
desire? We think not.
The key to this verse is to know the correct meaning of adultery.
Throughout the OT the word “adultery” means taking a married
woman from her husband. (We dealt at length with this subject in a
previous chapter). This verse does not condemn a man for looking
at a single woman in appreciation for her physical beauty and
sexual desirability and desiring to enjoy sex with her. If such is
wrong it will have to be proven by other verses, for this one has to
do with adultery. If a single man cannot look “sexually” at a single
woman without committing adultery then what about the
normal(?) role of sexual attraction and desire in the
courting/mating process? And what of the sexual desire, sparked
by the sight of a beautiful woman, that led to the practice of
polygamy and concubinage by godly men such as David, Abraham
and many others?
And what does this indicate about simply looking, even at a
married woman, without the desire to take her from her husband?
If there is no desire or intention or effort to possess her, it is not
adultery to look at a married woman and be aware that she is
beautiful & sexually desirable. “To lust after” a married woman, is
to “desire to take her for oneself,” in the sense of a desire to break up
a marriage so one can have another man’s wife as his own. Enjoying
sex with a married woman does not, of itself, constitute adultery.
Adultery is not a sex act. Sex may or may not be a part of adultery.
Adultery is a matter of breaking the marriage bond; it is rebellion of
either a wife or husband against the vows they made to each other.
Israel committed “adultery” against God, yet no human imagines
that Israel ever had sex with God. Israel’s adultery was in leaving
God’s provision, protection and authority, for another “husband’s”
(nation’s) provision, protection and authority. Sex had nothing to
do with it. In exactly the same way for humans, adultery is the
actual, or the desired breaking of the marriage bond, for the purpose
of being joined to another mate.
128
Prevailing opinion in the church is that for a man to look at a
woman and have any sort of sexual response, is sinful, unless he is
married to her. One well known pastor said to an audience of
several hundred people, “It is wrong for a man even to lust after his
own wife!” (I know. I was there. I heard it with my own ears!) Who
can truly believe such foolishness? But the prevalence of such
absurdities raises questions about human nature, and about the
proper understanding of the actual words Jesus used in this
statement.
First, human nature is such that every normal male is sexually
attracted to a pretty woman. He doesn’t have to “work up” an
attraction, it is simply there. It is automatic for a man to delight in
the sight of a beautiful woman and to have a strong sense of her
sexuality. It is all part of one package. It is part of the attraction of the
sexes to each other. For a woman to look at a man and find him
sexually attractive is as normal as for a man to look the same way
at a woman. It is the way God made people. Surely no one thinks
that a single man is attracted to and motivated to marry a woman
without any thoughts of sexuality! Such thoughts and desires are a
strong part of courtship for both sexes. When a single man looks at
a beautiful woman and has sexual thoughts about her and asks her
for a date, he has not sinned. Nor has a woman sinned who
delights in the sight of a handsome and sexually appealing man.
Whether he is married or unmarried is irrelevant.
Next, we must be honest with the words Jesus used and avoid
assigning them meanings that are not valid according to their true
definition. As shown above, the word “lust” cannot be properly
defined as “having sexual attraction to.” The word means “desire
to possess as one’s own,” in a covetous way. It is desire to steal what
belongs to another. Simple sexual desire of a man for a woman is
not invalid and cannot be made to fit under the definition of “lust.”
To “lust after” something or someone is to have a strong desire to
take what belongs to another. Just as hate is the motivation behind
murder, so “lust” or “covetousness” is the motivation behind theft.
So Moses forbade men to “covet your neighbor’s wife, or your
neighbor’s house….” (Ex. 20:17). Lust is not inherently sexual: it is a
desire to possess the property of another person. If that “covetous”
quality – the desire to steal – is not there, then it is not “lust.” As we
quoted above from Eerdman’s Bible Dictionary, “It can represent any
strong desire, including those that are sinful and those that are
129
not.” Apart from the desire to steal, it is simply a strong desire, and
that is not sinful.
The most important element in Jesus’ statement is His emphasis
on “adultery.” A man cannot commit adultery except with a
married woman (cf. next chapter). Jesus says this “looking” equals
“adultery in his heart,” so Jesus is talking only about a man who
looks at a married woman with an intention and desire to take her way
from her husband. If that intention is not there, then adultery is not
involved, and he is not condemned, even if he looks with sexual
desire. So, a man might look at a married woman with sexual
desire, yet not commit “adultery,” because he has no desire to take
her away from her husband.
This helps us deal with such issues as a person going to a
burlesque show, the sole purpose of which is the display of a
woman’s body to men, or a man’s body to women. Is the act of
looking at the naked body of the opposite sex sinful? If so, by
definition of what specific words? Which specific Scripture texts
teach that idea? Nothing in Scripture indicates that such is sinful.
The fact that such looking is overtly sexual, and purposely excites
those looking does not, in itself, make it sinful. In strictly Biblical
terms, for men to watch a woman strip is sinful only if the woman is
married, and then only if the man desires to take her from her
husband and marry her. This makes it “adultery.” It is the
“adultery” that is sinful: i.e. the desire to take another man’s wife.
Looking with sexual pleasure is not sinful. If a woman desires to
display her body for free or for payment, there is nothing in the
definition of words or Biblical examples, or anything else that
pertains to God’s law, that condemns such. As we have shown in
the Song of Solomon, the Shulammite girl performed just such a
nude dance for an audience of many people with the proud
approval of her lover, and all with God’s approval. If God’s word is
the only thing that can make a thing sinful then no one can make a
burlesque show sinful. We have a Biblical example of such, with
Divine approval of the dancer, her lover, and the delighted
audience who beg her for an encore! (Song of Solomon 6:13) It is
neither Biblical nor morally ethical to brand as sinful a person who
willingly sheds their clothes and allows other people to look at
their bodies. Nor is it sinful for those who look. Whatever
objections are made to this practice, they will have to be made on
some grounds other than Biblical condemnation.
130
One unfortunate aspect of this discussion is that because of
current, misguided values, invalid reasoning and non-Biblical
standards, all forms of sexual “entertainment” have, in this
country, been forced to the dark, seamy side of town and have been
placed in a category of “unclean” and “undesirable.” The fall-out
from this is that those who provide such services are forced to set
up in parts of town with higher crime rates, drug problems and
alcohol problems. It is then argued that burlesque shows have a
bad effect on surrounding areas. But the fact is that burlesque
shows are, by default, forced into bad areas by zoning laws, then
they are blamed for the area being bad! It is all politics, and bad
politics at that! In most other countries burlesque theaters and other
forms of sexual entertainment are regulated as any other business
and no discrimination is forced against them. Thus there is no
apparent “evil effect” of such businesses on the surrounding area.
In our day there are services which, for a set fee, provide a male
or female dancer who will come to one’s home or motel or
whatever and do a private show for one or more people. A typical
example of this is the “bachelor’s party.” Regardless of how we
react initially to this idea, the fact is that one cannot possibly brand
such a practice as sinful from a Biblical perspective. One may loathe
and detest such a practice if one desires. But one may not brand
such as “sin” on the basis of “lust of the eyes” because no such
meaning inheres in those words as they are used in the Bible.
This also has direct application to the issue of “pornography.” Is
it sinful for a man or woman to look at photographs of the bodies
of naked men and women? The reason given for such being sinful,
is that it is to “look with lust after” those people. Yet again, Jesus is
talking strictly about looking with the intention to commit
“adultery.” This involves the intention to deprive a man of his wife
and make her one’s own. If this is not part of the “looking,” then it
is not “adultery” and there is nothing in Scripture that forbids it.
Labeling any and all sexually oriented writings, photos or films as
“pornography” does not thereby make such sinful, unclean, etc.
Such labels would make the Song of Solomon a pornographic book.
Is God the Author of pornography?
We may take the thought further, to consider looking at
photographs or films of people having sex, or what is called “hard
core pornography.” Is it sinful for a person to watch other people
131
engaged in sexual activity? Might one watch a couple engaged in
sex play without sinning? We are not asking if the reader finds
such sights personally acceptable. We ask only if the Bible says
anything that makes it sinful for a person to observe other people
engaged in sexual activity. We do not believe such can be classified
as sin. Nor can it be said that it is sinful for a couple to enjoy sex
together while others observe. In a major U.S. city, a TV news team
reported on some local clubs whose practice was to provide an
“open house” for those who desire to come in to enjoy sex,
knowing that others would probably watch them from time to
time. The owner of one club said there were no doors to the various
rooms, requiring all participants to enjoy their sexual activities only
in semi-privacy. A stage was available where men or women might
dance nude for the appreciation of those who desired to watch. The
reaction of the news reporters was predictable: i.e. such clubs were,
if not vile, at least for “kooks, perverts and weirdoes.” Again, our
sole question is: “What does the Bible say?” Society’s standards
have no bearing on this question, because social standards have no
moral authority.
But a question arises about the nature of human sexuality and
its similarity to animal sexuality, and human response to both. No
one thinks it strange that people will watch animals mate. Public
TV often documents the mating habits of animals and it is not an
uncommon thing to see male animal genitalia in full erection. A
recent PBS documentary on apes did not blur out or apologize for
showing apes engaging in copulation. Male and female genitalia
were in full view, mother apes fed their babies with fully exposed
breasts, etc. Why is it not morally questionable to watch such
shows? Likewise, animals simply copulate wherever they have
opportunity and motivation. Animals do not seek privacy for sex.
Why do we conclude this is “normal” for animals but “abnormal”
for humans? Humans may, and do watch animals copulate with
not even a hint of wrongdoing. Yet we are horrified to think of
watching other humans do the same! Suppose we have two video
tapes sitting on the shelf. Tape one depicts a male and female ape
engaging in sexual intercourse and tape two depicts a human male
and female doing exactly the same thing. Many people would view
tape one and say something like, “Ah, interesting! Isn’t God’s
creation marvelous!” But most of those same people would view
132
tape two and react in horror at the disgusting, vulgar display of
lust, etc. Why? Why do we act this way?
Why do we conclude that it is sinful, or reprehensible, or
whatever, for humans to watch humans copulate? The act is exactly
the same; the organs are exactly the same; the orgasms are exactly
the same. Why is one wrong and the other right? People say, “Well,
with humans it is different!” OK, but exactly what is it about the
human sex act that puts it in a separate category from all else?
There is nothing about the act itself, because it is exactly the same as
animal sex. So is it the mere fact that we are humans? If so, where
does God declare, or even hint, that solely because we are humans we
must regard our sexual activity as totally different from animal sex?
Granted, God set some sexual boundaries for humans. But our
whole argument in these studies is that God set the boundaries He saw
necessary and left out all boundaries He did not feel necessary. Are we
smarter than God? Do we understand human sexuality better than
God? Should God ask us what we think is acceptable for humans to
do and to see? If God did not specify a sexual activity as sinful,
then it is not sinful regardless of what we think of it. No person is
required to do sexual things they find repugnant. But no person is
allowed to condemn others for activities that God has not
forbidden. In the realm of what God has not forbidden there is full
freedom for sexual enjoyment by those who desire it. In a culture
like ours where the masses have been brainwashed by a pharisaical
church, with the idea that sexual activity is inherently dirty, it has
become nearly impossible for most people to think soberly and
calmly about sex. Few of us have a healthy attitude toward this
most fundamental of all human, biological functions. It is tragic
that it is so. So much illegitimate shame, guilt, self-loathing, broken
marriages and such, would not exist if people could only be
convinced that the naked human body and its glorious sexual
function are “very good,” just as God said in the beginning. When
God created us naked and unashamed, establishing this condition
as His preference, He also made it innocent for men and women to
look at each other’s naked bodies with appreciation and enjoyment.
And God gave us the gift of sex for enjoyment, within very
specifically legislated parameters, and then set us free to enjoy this
gift in a wide range of ways. All restrictions apart from the few
God made against doing it, watching others do it, or being watched
while doing it, are human restrictions and no human is spiritually
133
or morally bound by those restrictions. We are no more bound by
such restrictions than animals are. The most we need to be
concerned about is regulating our personal activities in such a way
that others are not harmed spiritually or emotionally by the
freedom that we enjoy. Then if we desire to do it, we may go ahead
and do it without guilt or shame.
The bottom line is this: “Lust of the eyes” is looking with a desire
to steal the thing being looked at. Looking with appreciation,
fascination, sexual excitement and sexual desire is not contained in
this prohibition at all. This means:
• God has nowhere condemned the practice of men and women
looking at other men and women, whether married or
unmarried, with sexual appreciation.
• God has nowhere condemned the practice of men and women
looking at photographs of other men and women, and being
sexually excited by what they see.
• God has nowhere condemned the practice of men and women
looking at movies of other people engaged in sexual activity.
• God has nowhere condemned the practice of men and women
watching other men and women enjoying sex.
• God has nowhere condemned the practice of men and women
watching a live performance by a nude dancer, whether or not
they are sexually excited by it.
• God has nowhere condemned the practice of men and women
performing a nude dance, or otherwise displaying their body for
the admiration of the opposite sex.
• God must necessarily feel the same about these matters now as
He did when He inspired the Song of Solomon, which describes
the Shulammite’s nude dance and her sexual activities with her
lover. If God approved of it then in writing, He cannot possibly
disapprove of it in actual experience.
It does not make any difference how the world or the church
defines “pornography,” or otherwise categorizes these practices.
The only thing that truly makes a difference is what God actually
said or did not say. And if God recommends something as good, we
must agree with God that it is good in spite of what we, the church,
and the world have previously thought. We are bound to observe
what God said, and the laws He made. We are free to experiment
134
with and enjoy sex outside those boundaries, restricted only by a
“self policing” effort to avoid harming other people by our liberty.
WHAT EXACTLY IS “PORNOGRAPHY?”
The chapter detailing the erotic nature of the Song of Solomon
should show that erotic literature and art, in themselves, do not
violate Biblical moral standards. Some forms of erotic literature and
art may be illegitimate, but again, illegitimate, i.e. immoral forms of
erotic media must be defined by God’s word. So we are brought
again to the basic question, “What, if anything, does the Bible say
about what is commonly called pornography?”
The literal definition of “pornography,” comes from the
combined meaning of the two components, pornea which means
“forbidden sexual behavior,” and grapho which means “to write.”
So “pornography” is literally, “writings about forbidden sexual
behavior.” By extension it includes photographs and movies about
forbidden sexual behavior. Let us be sure we understand: it is not
“writing about sex” that is illicit; it is writing about “forbidden
sex,” that is wrong. Writing about sex or photographically
depicting sex is not wrong. It is only when one depicts sex that God
forbids that it becomes wrong, and then only if there is an impure
motive in writing; e.g. writing about incest in such a way as to
stimulate others to engage in incest. But many writings about incest
have nothing to do with sexual stimulation, and the writings
themselves are educational, and should be read by those who
desire to understand the nature of the act, its Biblical references,
etc. True “pornography” that merits censure, is writing about or
otherwise depicting sinful sexual activity. If the depiction is of
Biblically acceptable sexual activity, including photographs and
films of those activities, then it is not “pornographic” because
Biblically acceptable sexual activities are not forbidden. A writing is not
pornographic just because it is sexually explicit or stimulates sexual
desire. Desire for sexual activity is not forbidden. So depictions of
sex that arouse normal desires are not forbidden. It is so
unfortunate that our society uses the word “pornography” as a
blanket condemnation of all media depictions of human nudity and
sex. It is simply wrong to use the word that way. And that use of
the word makes the Song of Solomon a pornographic writing.
135
The word for pornography does not exist in either OT or NT.
However history is full of examples of sexual writings and
drawings that cover the gamut of every conceivable sexual
behavior. The question here is this: Is all writing about,
photographing or filming of sexual activity to be considered
pornographic, and does the Bible condemn it? In other words, is it
alright to have sex, but not alright to write about it or photograph it, or
watch it? Or is it alright to write about and photograph sexual
activity as long as it is kept within Biblically legitimate boundaries?
We believe the latter is the correct position to take on this issue. The
Song of Solomon is our proof. In the Song of Solomon we have one
of history’s best classical pieces of sexual literature. It presents
erotic sex, desire and nudity in a straightforward, unashamed, even
joyful setting. If the actual Hebrew words of that poem were
translated into their modern language equivalent, this poem would
surely stimulate sexual desire in some who read it. And its
descriptions of male and female genitalia, plus the unabashed
invitations by both boy and girl, to uninhibited love-making,
would quickly condemn it to the banned category. But the Song of
Solomon shows us what is good erotic media. It depicts human sex
in its wonder and passion, but within Biblically legitimate boundaries.
There is no depiction in this poem of any forbidden activity.
(Except for the fact that the boy and girl are not married! But that
subject will have to wait for another chapter.) We will add here
only that the kind of sex the Song of Solomon writes about may also
be photographed with the same propriety. If that poem had been
written today, who could doubt that it would be on the internet, in
full video splendor!
Since the word “pornography” describes depiction of illicit
sexual activity, the place to begin with a definition of pornography
is to ask: “What is forbidden sexual behavior?” Again we remind the
reader that only the Bible correctly answers that question. There is
but one reliable moral standard in the universe. It is the Bible. If the
Bible says a sex act is forbidden then it is so. But if the Bible does
not so define it then it is not forbidden regardless of what anyone
ever says or does. No human can define sexual morality. Writing
about sex or photographing people in sexual situations or making
movies that are explicitly sexual, does not automatically make
those things wrong. Again, we are trying to find what the Bible
says about all sexual matters. We are not concerned with
136
“community standards,” because the “community” rejects the Bible
as its moral guide, and therefore has no authoritative basis for its
definition of “pornography,” or for defining what is an acceptable
“community standard.” Also, the issue has nothing to do with
“redeeming social value.” If God defines a sex act as forbidden then
the act itself has no redeeming social value and neither does
depicting it in writing, photos or movies. On the other hand any
depiction of Biblically legitimate sex is acceptable whether
community standards agree or not.
Anything that glorifies, depicts in a favorable light, or sets up as
acceptable, practices that God has forbidden, is sinful. The principle
of Rom. 1:32 applies here: “…those who practice such things are worthy
of death, (yet) they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to
those who practice them.” Not only must we avoid what God has
forbidden, but we must also refuse to encourage or agree with
those who practice such sins. Writings, photographs and films that
depict incest, rape, child abuse, or bestiality, in a favorable light
must be avoided. The acts themselves are sin, and so is the
favorable depiction of them.
But explicit, graphic, verbal and pictorial representations of
nude men and women or of actual sexual acts are not forbidden in
either OT or NT. Personal and public opinion and church dogma
may hold such to be unethical and cry out for its annihilation, but
the fact remains that God did not see the practice as significant
enough to even comment on. Archeology proves that every
civilization had its forms of sexually explicit writings and
drawings. Such writings and drawings exist in the ruins of ancient
Egypt from which Israel was delivered as well as in every nation
that occupied Canaan surrounding Israel. While God took such
great pains to specify every other form of sexual vice which he
demanded that Israel avoid, why did He never mention even by
inference, such a prevalent practice? And how could He condemn
such writings, seeing that He also wrote such a book?
The existence of the Song of Solomon as canonic Scripture has
troubled religious people for centuries. This short book is filled
with unabashed, explicit descriptions of naked bodies including
descriptions of both male and female sex organs, an account of a
naked public dance, along with depictions of sexual intercourse
and oral sex. This book is accepted as Divinely inspired by most of
the modern church, yet its whole nature would have to be classified
137
as “pornographic” if we use the prevailing definition of that word.
The fact that God inspired the author of this graphically sexual
book, automatically means that to write about sex, to describe sex
organs, to depict sexual intercourse, etc., in a form that appeals to a
mass audience, is not pornographic, is not ill-advised, is not dirty, is not
immoral, is not sinful. The Song of Solomon was written to be read,
appreciated and enjoyed. One who reads it and enjoys the sexual
references cannot be faulted in any way. If writing about it is
innocent, then other means of depicting sexual activity is also
innocent. To depict sexual activity in photographs or films, either
for the purpose of sexual education or the enjoyment of the viewer,
is as innocent as is both the writing and the reading of the Song of
Solomon.
By our Western religious ethical standards, any depiction of any
sex act is pornographic. We view anything that is sexually explicit
as impure. All sex talk that is done outside the relationship of
husband/wife, is suspect, and even then, we are expected to use
only euphemisms, rather than actually call a penis or a vulva by
name. We are so paranoid about sex, that we cannot even talk
frankly enough to our children to educate them about sex.
The pleasure attached to viewing explicit sexual pictures,
movies, or writings, could actually be used as a powerful ally in an
effort to teach children the beauties, pleasures and responsibilities
of sex. Yet if we use sexually explicit photographs to educate our
children about sexual intercourse, we cannot then tell them that
such photographs are sinful and must be avoided. We involve
ourselves in a hopeless contradiction. We used the once popular
book, Show Me, to teach our children about sex. The photographs in
this book explicitly depict male and female genitalia, picturing
grown men and boys with erect penises, and couples having
intercourse. Yet our meager information, and still malformed
opinions, held all other form of sexual depiction as “pornographic.”
Nothing is inherently dirty, vulgar or sinful about a photograph
of a nude woman or man. Nor is anything inherently unclean about
a photograph or film depicting masturbation, sexual intercourse,
oral sex, etc. If God has not condemned the act or the observation of
the act by others, no human can make it wrong. Consider again, the
fact that humans watch animals have sex regularly and find
nothing at all offensive about it, and can even talk about it to
others. Many people intentionally breed their pets, and watch
138
while the breeding occurs. What makes this so radically different
from watching humans have sex? “Well, it’s different with
humans” is the first reply. But what makes it different, and who says
it is different? God watches humans have sex all the time. Why
have we come to the conclusion that it is sinful to watch people do
what God created them to do, and what God watches them do all
the time? Is a penis a sinful, dirty object? Is a vagina vulgar? Is it
the mere act of looking at them that is vulgar? When penis enters
vagina is the act dirty? Is it dirty to look at the act? How does it
become dirty by taking a photo of the act? Does transferring a
beautiful act to a piece of film transform it into an ugly thing? It is
truly miraculous that a wholesome activity becomes utterly
unwholesome somewhere in the transfer of its image to either
paper or celluloid. Again, let the existence of the Song of Solomon
serve as a sobriety test for us in this matter.
For those in whom God’s grace has worked sufficiently to set
them free from human rules and expectations; for those who see
that sex is gloriously beautiful and is to be accepted with
thanksgiving and joy; for those who can experience sex in all its
wonder without shame or guilt, let such know that what is so
beautiful, pleasurable and enthralling for themselves is so for others
and that there is no legitimate reason to exclude from personal
pleasure and sexual enjoyment, the erotic writings, photographs
and films that depict sex as the incredibly pleasurable, fun, indeed
entertaining activity that it is. Writing about, photographing,
filming, or performing live for those who desire to see that which is
created wholesome and beautiful, may be enjoyed without shame
or guilt. No shame or guilt can legitimately attach to either
depicting, or enjoying the depiction of legitimate sexual activity. Only
that which depicts, for purposes of sexual enjoyment, what God
condemns, can be legitimately defined as “forbidden writings.”
Our default setting on this issue is something like this:
“Pornography is filthy and disgusting, therefore the Bible must
condemn it.” Yet the truth is that a thing is not filthy and
disgusting unless the Bible condemns it. We have gotten the cart
before the horse on this issue. We have first decided that what we
call “pornography” is sinful, and then we turn to the Bible to verify
our conclusions. Our problems here as in all matters of sexual
morality, would be solved if we first look at the Bible, refusing to
form any conclusions about any sexual matter until we have
139
understood what the Bible says about it. Only after understanding
what God says about sex in the Bible, will any person be able to
form a right opinion about it. And it is useless to answer with: “But
there are some things that are just obviously wrong.” This very
attitude is the basis for condemnation of masturbation, oral sex,
back yard nudity and social nudity, women wearing dresses that
expose their knees or their ankles (depending on which religious
camp one comes from), women allowing their arms to show, or
even exposing the neck to public gaze, etc. What is “obviously
wrong” to one group of people is just as obviously right to another
group of people. Our subjective opinions, regardless of how deeply
we feel them, can never be made the basis for moral standards. Our
obligation is simple. Let God be God! Let God do all the legislating
about all sexual matters. If God does not condemn a sexual practice
we must not. If God does not see a sex act as worthy of even
mentioning in His word then we should refuse to form dogmatic
opinions about it. And if our opinion is that we should not do
certain things about which God is silent, we must refuse to make
our opinions binding on other people. And we must also refuse to
judge other people’s preferences and behavior on the basis of our
strictly personal opinions.
Another question arises. If media depiction of human nudity or
sexual activity is basically innocent, what about sexual arousal in
the one viewing this media? Does sexual excitement when a man
views a photo of a naked woman, make it wrong? If a woman
views a photo of a nude man and is sexually excited about it, does
she sin? Some people think that a photograph, painting, etc. of a
nude may be inherently innocent but that one must avoid any
sexual excitement from viewing it. Such an idea makes it okay to
look, but wrong to react normally to the sight. This falsely assumes
that sexual excitement is wrong unless it is directed solely at one’s
marital partner. The Bible does not teach such an idea. Nature also
speaks against it. A Catholic priest we knew of, years ago, was
known to frequent theaters showing sexually explicit films. He
attached a strip of gauze to his eye -glasses, which he would hang
over his eyes during the “bad” parts, evidently thinking he could
watch but he could not enjoy it. He could watch the act, but he could
not become sexually excited by watching. So he “filtered out the
bad parts” with gauze over his eyes. Are we the only one who can
see the absurdity of this?
140
If a married couple rent a sexually explicit video, watch it
together and either or both of them experience sexual enjoyment
from the experience, have they sinned? We think not. The same
question must be asked of those who read the Song of Solomon. If a
man reads this book’s descriptions of the Shulamite maiden’s body,
with unabashedly sexual references to her legs, breasts and vulva,
and experiences any sexual stimulation, has he sinned? Is God
displeased? Who can believe it! Sexual stimulation is not abnormal,
and we are not under bondage to some “unwritten law” that
condemns all sexual stimulation except in the marriage bed.
If it is legitimate to graphically depict sexual activity – and the
Song of Solomon proves that it is legitimate – then it must, by
necessary inference, be legitimate to experience whatever emotions
or reactions are naturally associated with those depictions.
May a couple view a sexually explicit film for their private
viewing pleasure and as part of their enhancement of their own
lovemaking? We believe so. We also feel that neither husbands or
wives should feel threatened that their mate desires to attend a
show where either male or female shows their nude body. A
burlesque show, in Biblical terms, is neither moral nor immoral for
the reason that nakedness is neither moral nor immoral, nor is sexual
arousal either moral or immoral. For one to dance naked for
admiring crowds is no more immoral now, than it was for the
Shulammite girl to dance naked for admiring onlookers in the Song
of Solomon, or for David to dance naked before the men and
women thronging the road to the city. The dancer is not immoral
nor is the onlooker even if he pays to see the “show.” It becomes a
moral issue when the dancing is done to entice the viewer to
forbidden activity, such as adultery. If a couple invited a male or
female dancer to come to their home to dance for their mutual
pleasure there is nothing to prohibit it. And to become sexually
excited while watching is natural but not immoral. Sexual
excitement, regardless of the source or cause, is neither moral nor
immoral. It becomes immoral only when that excitement comes
from illegitimate sources, (depictions of bestiality, incest or other
forms of forbidden activity) or leads to illegitimate action (anything
God has prohibited).
All animals copulate in the open. There is no such thing in the
animal world as private sex. If Adam and Eve had not sinned,
141
humans would also have sex in the open. There would have been
no shame, dirt, etc. attached to sex that would cause us to hide it.
We would copulate in the open as readily as we eat in the open.
There would be no private toilets and we would relieve ourselves
without shame or fear of being seen. Since there would be no
shame attached to our body parts we would have no more
reluctance to allow others to see our sexual organs than we have to
allow them to see our arms, feet, legs, face, etc. All body parts
would “hang out in the open” and their functions would be as
natural as breathing. It would not be an unusual thing for humans
of any age to witness other humans copulate without hiding. Just
as humans observe animals copulating, humans would observe
humans copulating and there would be nothing unnatural,
embarrassing or guilt-inducing about it. We realize this may seem
outlandish yet reality is all around us. Naked animals do what
comes naturally. They do not eat in public view then feel compelled
to hide when copulating or eliminating their body wastes. This is
the way God intended it to be for all His creatures.
Humans watching humans engage in sexual activities is neither
abnormal nor shameful. All guilt, shame, or embarrassment about
being seen or in seeing others engaged in sexual activity is a matter of
mental and spiritual conditioning; it is a factor of what we have
been taught. Hypocritical, opinionated, inappropriate, insufficiently
researched, non-Biblical teaching has produced an
unnatural fear of all things sexual in humans, and virtually all
humans suffer from the malady.
“Immodesty,” “indecency,” “exhibitionism,” “pornography,”
and such are all matters of one’s “degree of tolerance.” The
standards that cause humans to think in terms of these “sins” are
matters of strictly subjective opinion. Therefore every individual’s
standard and degree of tolerance will necessarily be different. Let’s
prove that statement!
“Immodesty” means different things to virtually everyone.
Since the Bible does not give us a definition of “immodesty” by
which to establish strict, objective standards, we are left with our
own subjective opinions. One person believes it is immodest for any
part of a woman’s body to be seen in public except her hands. She
must be clothed from head to toe and face veiled. Anything less is
considered “immodest.” Remember those video shots of the
women in Afghanistan? But the next door neighbor believes this is
142
radical, and thinks it is okay for a woman to show her face in public
and even bare her arms but no part of her leg can be uncovered.
Another neighbor believes both the previous neighbors to be
radical, and thinks women can allow face, arms and legs below the
knee to be seen publicly. Across the street lives an even more
liberated couple whose wife is so brazen she will go outside in
shorts, yet they will stop short of visiting the public swimming pool
because everyone there is “immodestly” dressed. But their next
door neighbors believe this is radical. They visit the public pool and
wear bathing suits like everyone else, but draw the line at bikinis
because bikinis are “immodest.” However, their friends next door
think they are radical, and they enjoy going to the public pool
wearing the most abbreviated swimming attire they can find. But
they cannot tolerate the idea of a “topless permitted” beach because
“exposing a woman’s nipples is immodest.” Yet they too have even
more liberated neighbors who not only visit topless beaches, but
also enjoy vacations to nude beaches, and regularly visit nudist
retreats.
Well now, the problem here is obvious isn’t it? No matter where
people find themselves on the “chart of immodesty” described
above, their place is determined not by the objective standard of God’s
word, but by strictly subjective standards based on past experience
and subjective opinions handed down to them by parents, society
and religious teachers. Each one conforms their behavior to their
conscience; they are restricted, by misinformation, to whatever degree
of tolerance their conscience will allow. All would be well if
everyone would follow this principle for themselves alone and
allow all others to do the same without accusation. But few can do
that. Once we establish our degree of tolerance we are convinced
that any other opinion is wrong. Those who breach our opinion on
the “right” are too radical in their restrictions, and those who breach
our opinion on the “left” are too radical with what they allow. This
is true regardless of which of the above categories we fall into. The
true absurdity of all this comes clear when we realize that each one
of those neighbors say “We follow this standard because the Bible
says we must be modest.” Every one appeals to the same Bible verse
yet every one has a different standard of application for that verse.
Reader, where do you fit in that “chart of immodesty?” If you are
somewhere in the middle, thinking for example that it is OK for
women to go outside in shorts, but that those on the right are too
143
restrictive and those on the left are too loose, how do you prove
that your position is right? The Bible verse you quote does not say
what the limit is in either direction. Any attempt to establish your
opinion of what is “modest” is just another human opinion. And it
is no better than any other human opinion.
The same is true of what people consider to be “pornographic.”
One couple refuses to watch any TV show that pictures a couple
kissing because it is “indecent” to kiss in public. But their neighbors
think that is radical, and can tolerate kissing and hugging, but draw
the line at anything more. But their neighbors think they are
radical, and they think it is OK to watch a film depicting Burt
Lancaster rolling on the beach with Deborah Kerr, in their bathing
suits, kissing while the tide washes over them. But being unclothed
any more than that is too much. However their friends across the
street can tolerate a couple kissing, hugging, and the man
unbuttoning the woman’s top, exposing her bra. But they can
tolerate no more. Beside them lives another couple who believe it is
okay to watch a movie that exposes both man and woman in full
nudity, but their “love-making” must be strictly “simulated,” and
no erections allowed, nor actual touching of sexual organs, and
certainly no actual, graphic sex allowed. Their neighbors, though,
enjoy watching films that depict the full range of sexual expression
between man and woman. Which one of these “levels of
intolerance” is the right one?
Really now, try a self-test. Read the last paragraph again, and
circle the situation that for you represents your personal level of
intolerance; the situation that for you is illegitimate. Then in the
margin of this page write the Bible verse or principle that makes
that situation wrong, while allowing the others to be right. Come
on! We dare ya’ to give it a try!
Of course the point is obvious. The “degree of tolerance” in each
case is a matter of subjective opinion. Not one of the above
“neighbors” can validly define from God’s word, the basis of their
objections to “unacceptable” sexual activity. Since their standards
are set by their subjective opinions, they each differ and they each
look askance at one another because everyone else is either “too
liberal” or “too restrictive.” One woman we know believed it was
wrong to read a popular muscle building magazine because the
bodybuilders were photographed in workout gear or posing briefs.
Her label for this was “soft porn.” But this was nothing more than a
144
personal opinion. This merely reflected her personal, subjectively
based, “degree of intolerance.”
Another way of examining this is to consider Michelangelo’s
paintings on the ceiling of the Cistine Chapel. Many nudes of men
and women are painted on this ceiling. Few people regard these
nudes as pornographic. Michelangelo and many other artists depict
the nude figure in drawings, paintings, and sculpture. Is it OK to
paint such nudes and for others to enjoy looking at them? Is it then
still OK for a photographer to depict nude men and women today?
If not, how and why did it become wrong? Are painter’s canvas and
sculptor’s marble suitable vehicles for depicting nude bodies but
film is not? On what objective basis do we decide that one is OK
and the other is wrong? Carrying this thought further, if we agree
that photos of nude people are OK, then are photos of nude people
touching each other wrong? If so, by what standard did we decide
that is it wrong? Maybe we can agree that they can touch each
other. But do we decide that if overt sexual activity is
photographed, then it is wrong? What reliable standard did we use
in arriving at that conclusion? When we reach the limit of our
personal level of tolerance, are we able to define by the objective
standard of God’s word, why we are right on this issue? Can we
demonstrate to those who have a different level of tolerance that
they are wrong? Do we have anything that is more reliable than our
own personal opinion?
People are at all different levels of “degree of tolerance,” on the
matter of “pornography.” There is no hope of anyone having a
truly correct opinion on this issue unless the Bible alone is used as
an objective standard for determining what is or is not acceptable
in the area of sexual activity, specifically in writing about it or
photographing and filming it. The standards we develop out of this
approach will permit anything that God’s Word does not prohibit, on
the basis of the Biblical principle that sin is whatever violates God’s
law. If God legislates against an act then the act is sin and those who
support the act also sin. If God does not legislate against a practice
then humans are free to follow their own opinions and establish for
themselves how far they wish to go relative to any and all sexual
matters. This means that if God has not legislated against the
depiction of normal sexual activity then it is acceptable to write
about it, photograph it, film it, and for others to read about it, view
the photographs, and watch the films. By the same principle it is
145
also allowable for those who desire, to observe the actual sexual
activity of other people and to engage in sex while others observe.
It becomes a matter of personal opinion, personal taste, personal
desire, personal conscience. People are free to either do or not do in
these areas. If the Bible does not set limits, then God has left it to
people to choose as they wish, limited only by how their behavior
affects other people.
The only Biblically legitimate restrictions that can be placed upon
these activities, based on what God has forbidden, are creating and
reading or viewing writings, photographs, films, or live
performances of sexual acts that depict bestiality, rape, incest,
adultery or pedophilia in a favorable light.
This is the only Bible based definition of “pornography” that we
can discern. It disallows what God disallows, and it grants liberty where
God does not legislate. This general rule applies to all of human
conduct. God legislates against what He forbids. All else is left to
individual choice.
So in practical application, a couple or individual who choose to
do so may, without violating any Biblical standard:
• Watch a TV movie that depicts varying degrees of physical
undress, and sexual situations.
• View photographs or films containing images of nude people.
• Be photographed or filmed in the nude.
• Visit a nudist retreat or nude beach.
• Watch a dancer perform in the nude and feel no guilt or
shame at enjoying the sight.
• Perform a dance in the nude for others to enjoy.
• View photographs or watch films depicting any form of
Biblically normal sexual activity.
• Observe others engaged in any Biblically normal sexual
activity.
• Engage in any Biblically normal sexual activity while others
observe.
One remaining thought may need addressing. “Why would
anyone desire to watch other people engaged in sexual activity?
Why would anyone consent to others observing their own sexual
activity?” Both questions arise from the fundamental – albeit false –
assumption that human sex must be private, with all the baggage
that goes along with that assumption.
146
First, sexual activity, even by Biblical standards, is not
fundamentally a private activity. It is not necessary that sexual
activity be private except for those whose personal preference is that
it be.
Second, many people derive great pleasure and sexual
enjoyment from seeing others engaged in sexual activity. There is
no prohibition in Scripture against such enjoyment. It is enjoyable
for many people to watch attractive women and men enjoying sex
together. There is nothing “dirty,” “perverted,” “shameful” or
contemptible about such enjoyment.
The kindred question is “Why would people want to watch
other people dance in the nude?” The same must be asked about
why the people wanted to watch the Shulammite girl (Song of
Solomon) dance nude? As the story plainly indicates, the onlookers
loved to see her beautiful body and even cried out “come back so we
can see you.” To this request, the woman’s lover replies, teasingly,
“why do you want to look at the Shulammite?” (Song of Solomon, 6:13).
The Hebrew word for look in this verse means “to contemplate with
pleasure” (Strong’s # 2372). Our modern version of the
“audience’s” request is “encore!” These people had watched this
beautiful woman dance nude and could not get enough. They
wanted her to “come back so we can see more of you.”
Significantly, the woman’s lover is not outraged or embarrassed
either by his lover’s nudity, or by the people’s desire to see more of
her. His question “why do you want to look at her?” is rhetorical.
He knows they experienced pleasure at seeing her beautiful body
and teases them with his question. Here is a man proud of his
woman and not at all possessive of her. He is pleased that she has
danced so well before these observers that they cry out for more.
What does this say about the situation where a man’s beautiful wife
desires to dance for others? Why would he feel any more
“threatened” by this than was the Shulammite’s lover? And why
would a wife (or husband) hesitate to delight others who desire to
see her (or him) dance nude? Surely we can see from the Biblical
record that such reluctance is not founded on any Biblical standard.
It is strictly a matter of subjectivity. And such non-Biblical
inhibitions can be overcome. At the very least all non-Biblical
inhibitions must not be made a standard for anyone else’s behavior.
Our observation then is that the desire to see beautiful men and
women in the nude, is as old as the Song of Solomon. God then
147
recorded this girl’s nude dance and the reaction of all those who
observed it, in a setting which overtly pronounces His approval of
the whole scene. We must conclude then that dancing nude for
others to see and watching someone dance nude and to
“contemplate with pleasure” what we see, is acceptable to God. We
are persuaded that a significant part of the “pleasure” in watching
this girl, was sexual pleasure. The makeup of human beings
virtually demands it. Nothing about this can properly be defined as
“pornographic.”
Let us now suppose that this girl might have touched her
breasts while she danced. Would this have made her dance vulgar?
Would this have cause God to condemn it? We think not. How can
we think it acceptable to expose one’s sexual organs in a vigorous
dance, but unacceptable to touch those organs during the dance? A
dance is not vulgar merely because it is sexual. Only our subjective
opinions make it so. Our problem is that we cannot imagine a God
being as nonchalant about the human body and its sexual functions,
as God shows Himself to be. God does not mind if humans fully enjoy
their sexuality, even if that includes sexually watching and
participating with others as part of that enjoyment. God sees this all
the time in the animal kingdom just as humans do. For God to
observe His kids enjoying their bodies does not make Him angry.
On the contrary, The Song of Solomon attests to the fact that God
delights in the sexual enjoyment of his kids. How sad that we
cannot be as free to enjoy sex as God is free to allow us to enjoy it.
Thus, whether we consider a nude pose, a nude dance, or more
overt sexual activity, whether printed on paper or film, or
performed live in the presence of other people, there is nothing in
God’s word that puts a restriction on that activity. That individual
or couple is indeed “happy whose conscience does not condemn himself/
herself, in that which they approve,” (Rom. 14:22). Let everyone decide
for themselves, within the scope of what God has not prohibited,
what sexual activity they desire to enjoy; “let each one be fully
convinced in his own mind” (Rom. 14:5) and let each one be free to
operate according to the truth that “nothing is unclean in itself; but to
him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.” (Rom.
14:14). Let people enjoy the fullest range of sexual pleasure
allowable and let not others condemn them. And for those whose
consciences will not allow them to do some things that are
148
nevertheless allowable, we speak this frank word of
encouragement. Make a serious effort to throw off the guilt, shame
and bondage of false rules and false standards. If your prison door
is unlocked and swung open why remain standing in your cell?
Why not walk out into the freedom and light? In sex as in all other
matters, erroneous thinking produces bondage that prohibits
enjoying life as God allows and intends it to be lived. And even
when people do not “yield” to impulses within them to do “dirty”
(by faulty, misinformed consciences) things, their consciences
condemn them for having thoughts or desires for those things. The
truth of the Bible makes men free. Once one sees truth the only sane
response is to begin making progress toward fully embracing that
truth. Why would anyone have their shackles removed, then refuse
to lay them down and walk away from them?
This does not mean that freedom on this issue means you must
begin to watch adult videos or go to burlesque shows. It simply
means that you can and should lay down your illegitimate
baggage, and the next time you see a photograph, painting etc. of a
beautiful nude, try to look at it with appreciation rather than guilt.
Try to not avert your eyes or to furtively glance around to see if
anyone around might know you. If you have secretly enjoyed the
sight of human nakedness but could not admit it for fear of others,
muster your courage and enjoy God’s creation. You don’t have to
explain it to anyone’s satisfaction. And you can just cast off their
guilt blankets like the dirty rags they are. If you enjoy watching
adult films but have struggled with condemnation from church and
society, leave that false shame and guilt behind. Watching beautiful
people do what God created them to do is not nasty, perverted or
any such thing.
Sex is good. Sex is beautiful. Human bodies are beautiful. Don’t
allow misinformation and religious prejudice to continue to rob
you of the joy of being a sexual creature in the midst of other sexual
creatures.
149
CHAPTER SEVEN
FORNICATION
The issue here is what we refer to as “pre-marital” sex, which is
commonly categorized as “fornication,” or “promiscuity.” This
category also includes “extra-marital” sex although the common
term for that is “adultery.” We have shown that “extra-marital” sex
is not automatically forbidden in Scripture. There are many
examples in Scripture of such activity but without any word of
correction from God, and in some cases what is said indicates
God’s approval! In this chapter we will look then at both nonmarital
sex as well as extra-marital sex. We will use the term “nonmarital”
sex to indicate all sexual activity by unmarried people.
Extra-marital sex refers to sexual activity by married people, but
with someone other than their mates.
The only Biblical law that deals specifically with this issue,
giving an actual example, is Ex. 22:16-17. Here, a man has sex with
a single girl. Scripture does not designate this as sin in any sense. It
is not defined as “fornication,” or “promiscuity.” In this case, God’s
law establishes responsibility of the man toward the girl with
whom he has sex. God’s first choice is that the man marry her. But
if her father refuses the marriage, a money dowry must be paid.
Copulating with a woman mandates financial responsibility for her.
Marriage is preferred but otherwise money paid to her because of
the sex and the taking of her virginity, is allowed. This is God’s law!
Having sex with a single girl is not “fornication” or sin here. If her
“price” is paid, marriage is not mandated, and no punishment is
inflicted. This financial responsibility is part of the honoring of
relationships and the persons of others, which governs sexual practice.
A man cannot just chase every skirt he sees and treat the women
like trash. If he is going to sex a woman he must compensate her
according to her price. Marriage is God’s preference but God
Himself allows for other means of discharging this responsibility. If
the girl is at home, the father sets the price. If she is not at home the
assumption seems to be valid that the girl herself sets the price. The
only other Biblical restriction on such a practice seems to be that of
the general requirement God makes regarding everything:
“moderation in all things.” Excessive sexual indulgence is implied in
the words “lasciviousness” and “concupicence.” Being financially
150
responsible for one’s sexual practices would in itself inhibit what
we call “promiscuity.” Since we do not have the same social,
cultural setting now as prevailed in this Biblical example it is more
difficult to determine the exact requirements for appropriate
“responsibility” of a man toward a girl with whom he copulates.
We do not pretend to be able to settle this issue here. What is
apparent though is that if the sex act is performed by those who are
not married the Bible does not define it as sin. If the Bible does not
do so we cannot.
Aside from actual Biblical law, there are several examples in
Scripture of non-marital sex. For instance, in 1 Sam.21:4, 5, we read
that David and his men have been on a military campaign for some
time when they come to the temple. David requests bread for
himself and his soldiers and the priests allow David’s soldiers to
eat “consecrated bread” only if the young men have kept
themselves from “women.” Spiros Zodhiates says of this word,
“This word is used almost 800 times in the OT and its basic
meaning is a female as opposed to a male.” (Hebrew, Greek Key
Study Bible) Since they had been gone from home and had not seen
their wives for a long time, it is apparent from this context that the
“women” here were not their “wives.” If they had sex with
“women” the only penalty is that their uncleanness prohibited them
from eating the “consecrated” bread. Thus the question of the
priests is whether any of them had sex with some of the women
they encountered while on this campaign, thus not their wives.
This is made more certain by the fact that the penalty of sexual
“uncleanness” applies only to the one day on which the sex act
occurs (Lev. 15:16, 18). After the sun sets they are clean. So this
incident seems to demand that these men might have had sex while
they were following David, on the very day that they asked for
bread, and if so they could not eat the sanctified bread because they
were unclean. If any of them had sex on that day, it could not have
been with their wives. This sex then must have been non-marital,
and even extra-marital.
The question then for this study, is: if they had sex with
“women” while out in the military field, even if they were all single
men, why is there no censure or warning from the priests that this
is sin requiring sin sacrifice? This would surely be non-marital sex.
And why not take measures to rid their camp of this sin lest it bring
their defeat as did Achan’s sin at Ai? (He took gold & silver from
151
the spoils in direct disobedience to God’s command.) That there
was no sin involved in their sexual activity is apparent. The
requirement for “cleansing” was purely ceremonial, relating to the
law requiring cleansing if a man had ejaculated semen, (Lev. 15:16,
18). But sin required different sacrifices. Everything about this
circumstance then indicates that the priests were concerned that the
men might have made themselves ceremonially impure by having
sex that day. That these men may have been sexually active even
though they could not possibly have been with their wives, makes
it obvious that the priests had no qualms about non-marital sex
and certainly did not define it as sinful.
Let us now look at the definitions of the words fornication and
concupicence.
Fornication:
Heb. zana.
“to commit adultery; fig. to commit idolatry, unfaithful,
whore(dom) (Israel being God’s spouse).” (Strong’s #2181, 2, 3, 4)
“harlotry, idolatry, fornication, whoredom,” (Strong’s # 8457).
Gk. porneia, fornication; porne, (fem.) a fornicator, pornos, (masc.) a
fornicator.
“to be utterly unchaste, give self over to fornication.” (Strong’s
#1608).
“adultery and incest; fig. idolatry; fornication.”
“lit. to indulge unlawful lust (of either sex), or fig. practice
idolatry; commit fornication
“a strumpet; fig. an idolater.” “debauchee (libertine), fornicator,
whoremonger.” (Strong’s #4202, 03, 04, 05).
Comments from OTHER AUTHORS:
“Fornication: Sexual intercourse performed outside the bonds
of marriage, considered an immoral work of the flesh. The OT
depicts this as “harlotry” or “playing the harlot.” As such the
concept is used figuratively with regard to Israel’s abandonment of
its covenant ideals.”
Eerdman’s Bible Dictionary, pg. 391
“Illicit sexual relations.” “These three words denote sexual
behavior that is not in accord with OT regulations and the teaching
of the apostles and other leaders in the primitive church. The word
152
porneuo is derived from GK. pornemi. Porneia means fornication, and
other illicit sexual activities in general, including those of a
homosexual nature.
“Although any kind of illegitimate sexual intercourse is an
adequate definition of the terms, the various contexts in which
these terms occur show their application to specific situations.
According to 1 Cor. 5:1, porneia refers to the incestuous relationship
between a man and his father’s wife. (cf. Lev. 18:8) Paul addressed
a more widespread problem among the Corinthians: sexual
intercourse with prostitutes (6:12-20). Paul emphasized the
seriousness of porneia. The person who commits porneia with a
prostitute “sins against his own body” vs. 18, i.e. defiles his body,
which is the temple of the Holy Spirit.
“Immorality (pornos) meaning non-marital sexual intercourse, is
distinguished from adultery (moichos) or extra-marital sexual
intercourse, in Heb. 13:4.”
ISBE, vol. 2, pg. 345, 808, 809 –
“Fornication seems to have been used of the sin of idolatry in
the church in NT, as adultery is of the same sin with the
Jews…fornication, to play the harlot.”
E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Concordance to the English and Greek New
Testament p. 303-304.
“Concupicence” (epithumia): “The thought of this word is more
commonly expressed by the words “lust” and “sensuality.” In
keeping with its etymological derivation, it can quite properly refer
to the simple and natural act of desiring a thing for the satisfaction
to be derived therefrom. In this sense of the term…concupiscence is
perfectly normal, natural and good. It becomes evil only in excess
because any excess violates the principle of moderation dictated by
reason…The satisfaction of physical desire in man is not evil in
itself since it is inherent in the constitution of man as created by
God.... -Although sin is primarily spiritual, it manifests itself also in
the corruption of all phases of man’s physical nature. So thirst
becomes an excuse for drunkenness; hunger for gluttony; sex for
lust. But sin is essentially spiritual and physical sins are derivative
and secondary in nature.
The exact relation between spiritual and physical sin is obscure
and not easy to analyze… Sometimes sensuality actually deifies or
idolizes something or someone… Concupiscence has a great variety
153
of forms and consists of “any inordinate devotion to a mutable
good,” of which sexual license is only the most striking example.”
20th Century Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 1, pg. 285-256.
“(The words refer to) harlot for hire, whoremonger, male
prostitute, licentiousness, fornication to live licentiously (indulging
freedom to excess).” It is used of cultic prostitution, both as a single
act and a general state. Prostitutes are unknown in the Homeric
age, but men often have concubines, e.g. female slaves. The
professional “friend” becomes a common figure in Greek society
and since intercourse is regarded as just as natural as eating and
drinking, extramarital affairs are permitted for husbands. Yet
excess is censured, and Plato defends intercourse with harlots only
as long as it is secret and causes no offense. Among harlots those in
brothels form the lowest class, those with some artistic skill a
higher group, and independent harlots who can command high
prices, another higher class.
“In OT the porneuo group has such sense as “to be unfaithful.” It
may be used of the prostitute, of the betrothed, or married woman
who proves unfaithful; figuratively it is used for apostasy as
unfaithfulness to God, and to “turn aside from God and go after
other gods.” Social problems promote prostitution (Am. 7:17).
Custom protects virgins but men are allowed some freedom as long
as they avoid the wives of others. The Law provides severe
penalties for betrothed women who are unfaithful.”
Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, one vol. edition,
pg. 918-920
Observations:
From the above definitions, it is obvious that “fornication,” and
“concupicence” do not inherently define specific acts as sinful.
They are both generic words whose specific meaning must be
derived from their contextual settings. In other words,
“fornication” does not mean “sex between unmarried people,” even
though this is the definition we learned “from them of old time”
and preached for years. Fornication means simply “illegitimate
sexual activity.” What is illegitimate must be defined by God else it
cannot be said to be illegitimate. Illegitimate sexual activities as
defined by Scripture would be: Adultery, Incest, Bestiality, Rape, forced
prostitution upon one’s daughter, sex as pagan worship and pederasty.
We treat pederasty (exploitative sex by an older man with a young
154
boy) as a separate issue because there is so much to deal with on
the general issue of homosexuality. Our book, God Is Not A
Homophobe, deals thoroughly with this issue.
The above definitions show that porneia, and zana have the
essential meaning of “illicit sexual activity.” Neither word defines
exactly what that activity is. They are generic words,
comprehending under their umbrella all the specific activities
which God’s law classifies as illicit.
Since God does not – anywhere – define pre-marital sex as “illicit” then
we cannot place it under the category of fornication.
This phrase from ISBE, is incorrect: “Immorality (pornos)
meaning non-marital sexual intercourse, is distinguished from
adultery (moichos) or extra-marital sexual intercourse, in Heb. 13:4.”
There is no such distinction indicated by the words themselves. The
Hebrew writer seems to take precaution to be sure that his readers
understand that adultery specifically, plus all forms of sexual sin,
will come under God’s judgment.
God does not define as illegitimate the practices of pre-marital
sex, masturbation, oral sex and perhaps others, therefore these
practices cannot be put under the heading of fornication. And only
if any of these practices become “excessive” can they be called
“concupicence.”
The conclusion that may be drawn from these facts seems to be
that God is not particularly disturbed by the mere physical act of
sex between two people, whether married or unmarried. What He
is concerned about is the relationship between them, the
responsibility of the man toward the woman and the need to keep
sexual appetite within appropriate boundaries so that sex does not
become obsessive. This last issue is the same as with eating too much
food (gluttony) and drinking too much wine (drunkenness). It is
not at all clear from Scripture that God condemns men and women
who have sex outside of marriage. What is clear is that in the only
instances where He actually references this issue He does not
require sin sacrifice for either man or woman but legislates only for
the protection of the woman. While this conclusion sounds radical,
the test is easy to take: simply read the whole Bible, note every
instance of law against sexual practice, fairly define the words
used, and see if there is any other conclusion warranted.
155
The issue of whether sex outside marriage is advisable is a
different question. We seek only to find whether God defines it as
sin. Our studied opinion is that He does not so define it.
Sex And Single People
Special attention should be given to the sexual needs of single
people. Standard church dogma remains “thou shalt not.” Yet not
even in OT theology is such stringency mandated for the single
person. As shown above the Bible does not directly address this
issue, and the word “fornication” does not address this issue. In
other words, the Bible does not contain a law, an example, or a word
that designates sexual activity by single people. Therefore it is
impossible to honestly state that “The Bible condemns sex by single
people.” We realize that this statement is made virtually every
week by some public proclaimers, somewhere in the world, who
put it forth as “God’s word.” But being repeated numberless times
by church authorities does not make it true. The fact is that God did
not say it! We challenge the truly diligent reader to try to find any
statement in Scripture where God condemns sex by single people
whether by example, by law or by legitimate lexigraphy. It is not
there. We know how radical that statement seems. Given the
universal and emphatic declarations to the contrary, one might
think us to be on unsupportable ground. But we say again, the test
is easy for anyone to take. Don’t go to your preacher and ask him if
this statement is true. Preachers are honest but blind about some
things just like the rest of us. In sexual matters especially, religious
leaders have much to gain by not questioning the status quo and
many will not even seriously consider any alternate viewpoint on
any sexual matter. They have been trained by their mentors,
pressured by their peers, and threatened by their financial
insecurity to give nothing but the “majority report” on sexual
issues. So if you want to be confident that you are getting close to
objective Bible truth, look for yourself. You will be amazed, even
flabbergasted at what you find when you look for yourself, with
eyes that want to see what is in the Bible. You may even be angry at
what has been kept from you by those who were responsible to tell
you “just the truth ma’am,” but who, for many reasons, could not
even find the truth for themselves. Read the appendix to this book,
156
and learn to use Bible research tools, and correct bible study
methods, for yourself. The hard work will richly reward you.
People are not devoid of desire or need for sexual activity
merely because they are single. The sexual urge arises very early in
a child’s life. No person lives without any sexual feelings or desires
until they are married. What? Do we think that magically, once a
minister pronounces them “man and wife” and gives the man
permission to “kiss the bride,” their gonads spring into action, their
sexual passion ignites, and suddenly for the very first time, the
married couple desires to “make love.” We know, we know: the
very idea is silly. But doesn’t it mean something about God’s
purpose for sex, that His creative hand released sexual urges even
in children, but never told them that they must “wait until
marriage or go to hell?” We tell them that but God did not.
If sex is a gift from God it is as much a gift to single people as to
married people. It is neither compassionate nor Biblical to tell them
that they must “be celibate or be damned.” Sex is “good” for the
single as for anyone else. What is needed is a loving approach to
single people that does not confine them to a sexual prison of our
own human design; that opens the door to sexual activity while
teaching them their personal obligation to “love” those with whom
they are sexually involved. This means that single people must
understand the obligations of love that arise in consideration of
such issues as possible pregnancy and venereal disease, honesty
regarding intentions, responsibility for the welfare of their sexual
partners and so forth. If Biblical agape guides the single person, sex
is no more withheld from him/her than for married people.
Church tradition holds that marriage is the only venue for
sexual expression. Church dogma on this matter can be stated
thusly: “Yes, sex is a gift from God and is a legitimate pleasure for
men and women, but heterosexual marriage is the only provision
God gives for its expression.” This concept is stated with such force
and confidence that one expects to be able to read such a statement
in Scripture. But there is no such statement. People have
interpreted certain Biblical statements to “mean” this, and then
they bind this personal interpretation upon all others as Divine law.
Let us be clear: The “sexual activity only within the confines of
heterosexual, monogamous marriage” dogma, rests on no more
substantial foundation than subjective human interpretation! This
dogma is human conclusion, not Divine statement. All the arguments
157
from Scripture presented by Catholic and Protestant theologians
fail to provide a satisfactory and clearly demonstrable explanation
of why sexuality must be expressed only within monogamous
marriage. This concept is read into Scripture. It is not derived from
Scripture. Some more “liberal” ones will go so far as to admit the
permissibility of “pre-ceremonial” sex between engaged couples,
while yet inconsistently holding firmly to the “marriage only”
ethic. No satisfactory reasons are given for this position. Indeed,
such a position denies the reality expressed by dozens of Biblical
passages that demonstrate various circumstances in which sex
either was, or could have been enjoyed outside marriage and with
apparent Divine approval.
The Song of Solomon details in sexually graphic fashion the
passion of a woman and man who delight in their sexuality. Their
sex is neither “marital” nor “pre-ceremonial.” Their purpose in sex
is not to have children. Their delight in one another is simple
passion – pure, holy, delightful passion. Though not using the
vulgarisms so commonly used today, this poem paints delightful
word pictures of the male and female bodies including the sex
organs. There is in this poem no fear of passion, no shame at sexual
delight. This poem is God’s tribute to the delightfulness and
importance of sexual desire as part of His “good” creation. That it’s
two primary actors are not married is telling in profoundly
significant ways. That’s right: read that little poem and see if you
think that this sexually involved couple is married.
Today young people are refusing the church’s and society’s
taboos on pre-marital and extra-marital sex. And well they should.
We are not saying that people have license to run amok and
exercise no restraint. But single people have no responsibility to
honor taboos that have no genuine foundation in God’s word. The
issue of “promiscuity” is important. However, no Divine guidance
exists for defining exactly at what point sexual activity become
“promiscuous.” In fact the Bible has no word that is equivalent to
our English word “promiscuous.” We will go further to state that
the Bible does not even address the issue of what we call
“promiscuity.” This word is truly a religious “buzz word.”
Religious teachers use it constantly to threaten anyone who might
be tempted to experience sex in any way outside monogamous
marriage. The closest the Bible comes to what this word suggests to
our minds is its use of the word epithumia, which is translated
158
variously as “lust” or “concupicence.” But as “concupicence” the
words merely indicates “going too far” sexually. Yet the Bible does
not show how far is “too far.” The Bible also condemns
“drunkenness” but gives no guideline for determining exactly at
what point one becomes “drunk.” God requires responsible
individuals to exercise self-restraint in using alcohol. God also
condemns “gluttony” yet He gave no Biblical guideline for
deciding when occasional over-eating has become gluttony. We
may enjoy good food and lots of it, but we are required to exercise
personal discipline and self-restraint. God condemns “greed” but
does not tell us at what point legitimate pursuit of money becomes
sinful “greed.” The same principle is true of sex. To define as
“promiscuous” any sex outside marriage is absurd. Unfortunately
there is no word that describes a middle ground between
“concupicence” and “chaste.”
Surely it is time for us to attempt to exercise loving,
compassionate concern for the needs of single people. Can it be
right to require single people to totally subjugate a passion they feel
every bit as strongly as do married people? Can we find courage to
tell them that the ethics of Jesus requires only that they exercise
responsible self-restraint in sex as in all other things? And can we
tell them that the ethics of Jesus requires them to engage others
sexually in full consideration for the other person’s needs, desires
and well-being? Can we in fact trust Jesus when He tells us all that
His “law of love” replaces, and will serve us better than all the
commandments ever written?
The distinctive element of Christian morality is the primacy of
Christ’s love command. First, we must be completely devoted to
God. Then we are required to love people and be devoted to their
welfare (Matt. 22:37-40). This love – agape – is not a human emotion
or sentiment. It is not based on whether we like or dislike a person
or whether we agree or disagree with their life-style. It is a
standard to which all our attitudes and conduct must conform. This
love is not conditioned on expectations of reciprocity or evaluations
of a person’s worthiness. We are told to love our enemies: a
standard of conduct that transcends customary rules of morality,
(Lk. 6:27-33). It is not an easy moral command to obey. It requires
that we rise above and reach beyond personal, selfish desires so
that we properly and actively value other people even if they are
enemies. Jesus requires us to embrace a morality that requires a
159
constructive, compassionate, unconditional and concrete commitment
to other people and their needs.
This agape is especially needed as the spiritual venue in which
discussion is conducted about the viability of various sexual
expressions such as singles-and-sex, homosexuality, prostitution,
polygamy, masturbation, oral sex and perhaps others. It is good
and right that forceful, passionate argumentation is brought to bear
on all such issues. But resolution will never come from
argumentation apart from mutual respect for people of good will,
and toleration of reasoned and reasonable moral differences. Love
plus a thorough going, personal “reality check” will enable us to
accept the reality that we are all subject to self-righteousness and
unjust intolerance. Knowledge of right and wrong, like knowledge
of God, is imperfect and is in the process of being refined in all of
us. Despite the high confidence we place in religious beliefs and the
moral judgments derived from them, our beliefs and judgments
should always be held with a loose grip because none of us are
infallible and none of us are 100% objective. People of faith should
remain open to new insights into the nature and will of God and to
new understandings of right and wrong. If God’s revelation was
subject to perfect comprehension and if humanity had perceived all
of God there is to understand, then the ministry of the Holy Spirit
would be unnecessary and none of us would need to read the Bible
anymore. Theological and Biblical studies are continually clarifying
the meanings and applications of authoritative sources with respect
to God, humanity and the relation of each to the other. Faith is
neither knowledge nor certainty. What understanding any of us
have on any issue is incomplete and we must take the rest by faith.
Our present concepts do not constitute all truth. For Christians
human agape supercedes all other rules of conduct.
In generations not far removed from our own we subjected
black people to the most horrible injustices imaginable. Our open,
even proud contempt for them as a class was exemplified by the
special words we used to identify and to insult them: “nigger”
“spook” “coon” etc. For years the church contributed to racial
bigotry and hatred through the teaching of many religious
“scholars” who believed and taught, from the Bible, that black
people were subhuman, made to be slaves, the descendants of
either Cain or Canaan whose blackness was inherited through the
curse God put upon those men for their sins. As the world
160
excluded them from social and economic equality and opportunity,
so did the church exclude them from full Christian fellowship and
spiritual opportunity. They were required to sit in the back of the
bus and in the back of the church. Slowly we grew to understand
the hideous nature of what we were doing and black people began
to be invited into white churches by a few daring leaders. Many
churches experienced bitter division as some accepted their black
“brethren” and others continued to reject them on “Biblical”
grounds. Ever-so-slowly change has come though we are still far
away from dealing with black people righteously. The point here is
that what we passionately held as deeply rooted, genuine religious
conviction brought horrible injustice upon a whole race of people.
We had to repent of wrongly held and hurtful values.
Women have suffered for ages from the patriarchal stranglehold
men have on society and the church. They have been relegated to
the backwaters of every aspect of society and religious life. Women
still do not receive equal pay for equal work. Women were not
allowed political office. Women in many instances were not even
allowed to obtain a college education. Women were used as
possessions and child-factories. It was a matter of pride for a man
to “keep the little woman barefoot and pregnant.” Their status was
little better than slaves, subject to the whims and demands of their
husbands and virtually all other males. We also had special words
by which we demonstrated our contempt for women. We would
verbally abuse a woman by calling her a “bitch” “slut” or a “cunt.”
If we wanted to insult a man we called him a “sissy” or “pussy.”
We accused him of wearing “panties.” The church contributed to
this sinful gender bias through Bible exposition and teaching (all
done by men) that held women to be “in subjection to the man.”
They meant by this that women, as a class, were inferior to men and
not deserving of the same consideration, opportunities, etc. as were
men. Once again, so pitifully slowly, the church is learning better
and what was passionately held dogma in all churches has
gradually, and in many cases grudgingly, given way to the
realization that women are viable participants not only in society,
the workplace and government, but also in the church. We had to
repent of wrongly held and hurtful values.
One of the greatest wars now raging in the church and society
surrounds homosexuality. Again we have our special words of
contempt and insult: “queer” “faggot” “cock-sucker” “dyke”
161
“butch” etc. Homosexuals have suffered at the hand of society and
the church in horrible ways. Our own generation has witnessed
many examples of gay-bashing and even murder of homosexuals.
They are discriminated against in the workplace, in government
and in many other segments of society. But it is the church that
most vociferously and violently damns them. As always there is
impassioned appeal to Scripture for the justification of unloving,
unjust, inconsiderate, even inhumane treatment of these human
beings. We say their sin justifies our hateful treatment of them.
“They are reaping what they have sown” or something like that.
Yet again the church, through continued study and learning is,
with agonizing slowness, seeing that it has been as wrong about
homosexuality as it was about women’s rights and black people’s
rights. Teachers, preachers and theologians are doing better
research and seeing more light and some of them are exercising
great courage to go public with what they are finding.
Consequently churches are slowly beginning to show agape to
homosexually oriented people. So much work and progress still
needs to occur but at least the beginnings are here. The church will
surely one day own up to its error and sin in this matter as it has
had to do on other issues. We will have to repent of wrongly held
and hurtful values. Love – agape – demands that we do so.
A study of all God’s laws regarding sex reveals His basic
concern. God was not afraid of sex or fearful that His people might
actually enjoy sex. The erotic joy and power inherent in sexuality is
by God’s wonderful design. God expects us to enjoy sex. We honor
God when we thrill at sexual pleasure. Evaluating God’s written
will regarding all things sexual leads us to the conclusion that
sexual morality or immorality is never a matter of what specific acts
are acceptable or unacceptable. Rather sexual morality or
immorality is an expression either of loving or of hurtful human
relationships. Relationships are moral when they are mutual,
supportive of the full personal growth of each person, committed to
the needs of each other and faithful to each other. Relationships are
immoral when they are abusive, violent and exploitative; when
they prevent people from developing and lead to lying, deceit and
betrayal.
This norm of sexual morality based on loving relationships
eliminates the neat boundaries between moral and immoral sex
that are so important to church leaders and civil authorities who
162
feel compelled to keep everyone in proper moral alignment
through legislation of morality. Procreation in heterosexual,
monogamous marriage ceases to be the standard by which all
sexuality is measured. What is moral or immoral sexually becomes
more a question of a scale of values than of clear boundaries. A
relationship based on love rather than commands and laws
promotes development in the lovers. We are able to grow toward
healthy, loving, supportive, mutual relationships, and away from
abusive and dishonest ones. The morality of homosexual
relationships is to be based on the same standard and judged
equally with heterosexual relationships. And the question of the
morality of polygamy and prostitution are likewise to be judged by
the standard of love, not rules. Additionally the practices of
masturbation, oral sex, use of sex toys, erotic materials, consensual
extra-marital sex and sex by single people are judged by the same
standard. What works no harm to others is not forbidden. Those
who prefer to enjoy those practices may do so.
It is immensely important to all of us that we remember and
practice what the Apostle Paul implies in 1 Cor. 13:12, 13. Love, the
greatest of all spiritual qualities, will endure forever. Love is
greater than judgment, than personal opinions, than condemnation,
than all other considerations. Far better it is to love a person who is
palpably wrong than to condemn or accuse. We do not have all the
answers and we never will unless somehow we become infallible.
And we have made too many mistakes in the past by interpreting
Biblical statements exclusively in the light of our own modern
cultural and ecclesiastical context. We have hurt too many people
by establishing unbreakable rules on the flimsy foundation of our
fallible and often gullible understanding. In doing so we have
subjected millions of innocent people to horrible suffering, whose
only offense is in being born either female or with black skin. We
must cease committing the same sins against those whose sexual
practices do not meet our personal standards especially in light of
the absence of unambiguous biblical evidence. God requires of us
the same grace toward others that He has exhibited toward us. Of
all laws, rules, and ethical standards that have ever been given
there is only one that is eternal. Standing above even faith and
hope, the greatest of all is love. In the midst of trying to discern
what God does and does not allow ethically we cannot be excused
if we violate the greatest and most unambiguous command of all.
163
We must love one another. We must love the polygamist, the
homosexual, the prostitute and the single who celebrates his/her
sexuality. At the very least this means that we must not exclude
sexually active singles from participation in the church, must not
relegate them to “second-class” status and must make overt
attempts to relate to them in loving, encouraging ways. As God has
so freely given grace to we who are so utterly undeserving so must
we be willing to give grace to those whom we consider to be utterly
undeserving. To do otherwise closes off any legitimate expectation
we may have of obtaining future grace.
Transparently and Biblically stated, our proposition is this:
Within the parameters of true love for God and fellow men we are
free to enjoy our sexuality as fully as we desire, in the manner we
desire and with whom we desire. Loving God means that we
sanctify sex by thanking Him for it and honoring His requirement
that we treat others as we desire to be treated. Loving others means
that we treat them with respect and dignity, that we demonstrate
concern for their welfare, that we do nothing that compromises
their safety and well-being or takes advantage of their
vulnerability.
The law of love thus opens sexual expression to single people,
couples who desire to include others into their partnership whether
permanently or short term and prostitutes by choice. It allows
masturbation, oral sex and the use of erotic writings, photos and
films as means of sexual stimulation. It allows voluntary use of “sex
toys” such as vibrators for sexually stimulating oneself or one’s
lover. It allows playing sexually with others who volunteer to play.
It allows people to enjoy this gift of sex without shame and fear.
Doubtless that was God’s original intention.
Multiple Sex Partners
Now we consider the general examples of multiple sexual
relationships where polygamy or concubinage seems not to be
involved. There are not many of these examples but enough, we
think, to illustrate God’s attitude toward non-marital sexual
activity. The church has universally branded all such activities as
“fornication” if done by unmarried parties and “adultery” if either
of the parties is married. Of course God’s acceptance of polygamy
and concubinage proves that not all multiple sex relations are
164
“sinful.” David never committed fornication or adultery in his sex
relations with his many wives and concubines. We mentioned that
Solomon had enough wives and concubines to have sex with three
different women, every night for a year! Yet none of that would
constitute adultery or fornication. So what is the real Bible stance
on the practice of a man or a woman having sexual relationships
with more than one person at a time? Let’s look at the few Biblical
texts that deal with this matter.
King Abimelech takes Abraham’s wife, Sarah, to enjoy sex with
her, (Gen. 20:1-18). In a dream God warns him “she is married,” (vs.
3). Abimelech’s defense is that, “he said she is my sister,” (vs. 4,5).
God grants Abimelech’s “integrity” in taking Sarah, thinking she is
single, (vs. 6, 7). Yet Abimelech is married, (vs. 17, 18)! Abimelech has
“integrity” before God because he knows “sin” is involved in
taking the sexual property of another man, (vs. 9) & he is careful to
avoid “sin” in sexual matters.
God answers Abraham’s prayers for Abimelech by healing his
wife & maids so they can have children. Abimelech was enjoying sex
with many women, “all the wombs of his household,” (vs. 17, 18).
Since God knows his “integrity” why did He not inform Abimelech
that it is wrong to have multiple sex partners? Why not even a
syllable indicating sex with both his wife and his maids is wrong? It
is notable in this story that the only censure coming from God is
that Abimelech attempted to have sex with another man’s wife. The
only fly in this ointment is that Sarah is married. The necessary
conclusion is that if Sarah had not been married Abimelech could
have added her to the women who already served his sexual
desires and this would have been acceptable. God’s answer to
Abimelech’s prayer, opening his wife’s and maid’s wombs, proves
God’s approval of his bearing children through several different women.
Now since Abimelech needs prayer why does God not require that
he “repent” of his much womanizing as a pre-requisite for
answering prayer? Obviously God does not see that Abimelech
needs to “repent” of anything except attempting to take another
man’s wife.
It is quite obvious from this incident that Abimelech was a man
of great sexual desire. Having many women already available to
him he yet takes in Sarah as another prospective sexual partner. In
this he maintains his “integrity” before God. It is important that we
165
get the real importance of this: God said “Abimelech, I know that you
are a man of great integrity, and that you do not knowingly sin. You do
not knowingly take what is not yours. You have a wife and many maids
with whom you have sex. It is not a lack of integrity for you to desire one
more woman. But Sarah is married. She belongs to another man. You
must not attempt to steal her from him.” It is apparent that if Sarah had
been single, having sex with her would not have brought any
disfavor from God. This is another instance in proof that God is not
fundamentally concerned about how many women have sex with
how many men. He is concerned about our being faithful and
responsible to established relationships. There is nothing inherent in
the sexual act that requires that one man enjoy sex with only one
woman for life. The Bible is too full of examples to the contrary,
with God’s approval. What is clear is that God’s law does not
concern itself primarily with who has sex with whom, nor with
how many sexual partners one has. God’s law mandates honoring
relationships and being responsible toward those with whom we
enjoy sex. No man or woman is allowed to break up an existing
marriage by sex or any other device.
One can live in full sexual “integrity” before God and have sex
with someone other than one’s mate (Abimelech, David, Abraham,
Solomon, Gideon, etc.) as long as one honors one’s own established
relationships and the relationships of those with whom one has
“extra-marital” sex. We have shown in the chapter on adultery that
having sex with another person’s mate is no longer automatically
forbidden. Since the reasons for that prohibition no longer exist
then it is possible for married people to have sex with other
married people without sin as long as all the parties involved are
agreeable to the practice. If for example a wife refuses to accept the
practice then the husband cannot disregard his relationship with
his wife and have sex with others anyway. This is adultery. In this
matter as in all sexual matters, the issue of marital status is no
longer primary. The primary issue is love, concern, due regard for
established relationship and what is good for the other person
involved.
Isaac lies about Rebekkah saying that she is his sister.
Abimelech rebukes him because one of the men might have “lain
with your wife…” and brought guilt upon them, (Gen. 26:10). The
sin is not in laying with a woman, but with a wife! These two
incidences demonstrate the folly of trying to make concubinage and
166
such acts a detestable thing for pagans and a merely tolerated thing
for the sake of Israel. Abimelech is a pagan who has “integrity”
before God and engages in these actions without any correction
from God. If it is the pagan aspect that so aggravates God, this
would be a perfect place to reveal it to us. But again we are left
with no correction. It is unthinkable that God would inspire these
two stories without taking opportunity while telling the story, to
illuminate His people for all time about His hatred for multiple
sexual relationships. He corrects Abimelech’s potential “adultery.”
He commends Abimelech’s “integrity” in thinking he was merely
taking another single woman. Both this commendation of
“integrity” and His silence about the “sinfulness” of multiple
sexual relationship, speak more than enough for us to draw some
well founded conclusions. For example:
• God apparently approves of Abimelech, though married,
taking another woman for a sexual partner. Can we believe God
detests Abimelech’s sexual practices yet blesses those practices by
opening the wombs of his many women and giving him many
children?
• God quite obviously does not view the sex act as we view it.
There seems not to be a great difference in God’s mind between
the sex act itself as experienced by either animal or human.
What we have grown to view as dirty & perverted, God
evidently sees as a normal biological function with no inherent
moral implications.
• This kind of “debauchery” that makes us pull our spiritual
hair, God simply looks at, disregards, and lets Abimelech go on
his way.
• Human relationship is the key to understanding this entire
sexual area. God’s regulations on sexual practice have to do
with honoring appropriate relationships. For Abimelech as for
all men, this means no one is allowed to take another man’s
wife. Abimelech would have taken Sarah into his harem and
Abraham would have lost his wife. This is what constitutes
“adultery.” Adultery is not merely having sex with a married
woman. Adultery is taking a wife away from her husband;
breaking the marriage bond. This is the reason adultery cannot
be committed with a single woman.
167
Judah asks Onan to make Tamar pregnant because her husband
died without an heir. Judah has sex with Tamar but withdraws his
penis to ejaculate on the ground. God kills him for this breach of
law and for his contempt for his brother’s lineage. God approved of
his sex with Tamar and actually made provision for exactly this
situation in His law. But God killed Onan because he refused to
bring forth an heir for his brother. Thus a married man enjoys sex
with his sister-in-law because God requires it. If he completes the act
all is well, but he is killed for not depositing his seed in her. This
has nothing to do with masturbation. The sin is refusing to give
offspring to his brother, (Gen. 38:7- 9). Are you sure that you got
the real point of this example? God demands that Judah (a married
man) have sex with Tamar (his sister in law). God kills Judah not
for having “extra-marital” sex but for not finishing the act by
ejaculating within her! Regardless of what we have heard all our
lives, having “extra-marital” sex is not automatically damnable.
Gilead enjoyed sex with a “harlot” who bore Jephthah, yet
Gilead is married and has several sons by his wife, (Jdg. 11:1, 2).
There is no censure from God for Gilead’s act of taking a sexual
partner other than his wife. What a perfect place to condemn the
practice of prostitution as well as that of “adultery or “fornication.”
How can anyone believe that God hates the practice of prostitution,
yet while relating a story that focuses on that very act He never
says a word that tells us He hates the act? He never hesitates to tell
us that he hates “adultery.” So, what do you make of His silence on
these other matters?
Samson’s wife is given to his friend, (Jdg. 14:20). Her father
offers his younger daughter to Samson, (15:1, 2). There is not even a
hint that this sexual “switcheroo” displeased God.
After enjoying sex with a harlot in Gaza, Samson “loved…
Delilah,” i.e. enjoyed sex with her. Now Samson is working on his
third woman and yet there is no correction by God, who again fills
him with power, (Jdg. 16:4-14). It is important to remember that
underlying this whole story is the fact that Samson is a Nazarite;
i.e. one who is especially holy before God. How can God bless
Samson as “holy” and allow him to manifest His power while
Samson is so “promiscuous?” Obviously the problem God has with
sex is not what we assume. When we say “promiscuous” God says
168
“ho-hum.” Samson might have enjoyed sex with a hundred women
without ever breaching God’s holiness. David did so and Solomon
likewise. God’s anointing and power remained upon Samson as
long as he was faithful to his Nazarite vows even though he
enjoyed sex with several women. It is not the sex that God legislates
against; it is the abuse of relationships He outlaws.
The final Biblical word on Samson honors him as a man of faith
and righteousness, (Heb. 11: 32,33). He is an example for Christians!
It is folly for any of us to attempt to reproach Samson’s sexual
appetites and practices seeing that God does not, the author of
Hebrews does not and he is listed as a hero of faith with not a
syllable of Divine rebuke for his sexual activities. These are the sort of
hard facts that prove God’s attitude toward sex is nothing at all
what we have been taught. We have actually accused God falsely of
basically hating sex, or basically fearing his people will have too
much fun with it, or considering it basically unclean, or…. The facts
are clear. God does not dislike human sex and He does not mind at
all that we enjoy sex with many people in many different ways. He
merely requires that we honor all those people by doing nothing
that harms them or that threatens existing relationships.
A man dies and his 6 brothers, each in turn, have sex with the
widow trying to give the dead brother a child, (Mk. 12:19ff; Lk.
20:27ff). Jesus corrects the Jewish leader’s error relative to their
misunderstanding of the existence of marriage at the resurrection,
but Jesus does not utter a syllable about the example, based on OT
theology and practice, being wrong. The example was based upon
established OT law and Jesus accepted it as Divinely approved.
Can you imagine Jesus believing that it was wrong for six brothers
to have sex with the same woman and not say a word about this
“sin?” What does His silence prove? It proves that He saw nothing
that needed to be corrected.
So what is God’s attitude toward what we call sexual
“promiscuity?” Scripture will not allow us to conclude that sex with
many different partners is sinful. Too many heroes of faith, the
most highly favored leaders of Israel, the greatest religious men of
all time, had sex with many women and never lost their divine call
or their anointing. Sex is not unholy. Sex with more than one partner
is not unholy. Sex with anyone that results in a broken marriage is
169
adultery and is condemned. Forcing sex upon someone (rape) is
condemned. Incest is condemned. But sex with multiple partners is
not condemned. How we feel about this is utterly irrelevant. What is
relevant to this issue and absolutely crucial, is what the Bible actually
says and what it does not say. No human is obliged to forego a
liberty and a blessing of sexual experience simply because the
church or social standards says it is wrong. Nothing is wrong that
God’s law does not make wrong. This universe has only one
Lawgiver. His name of Jehovah. And Jehovah’s law does not forbid
people from enjoying sex with more than one partner. What
Jehovah’s law requires is that we restrict our sexual activities in
such a way that people’s individual rights to maintain control over
their own body are respected and that established relationships are
not damaged. How many times a person has sex and with how
many partners is not something God has legislated.
Can One Person “Love” More than One Other Person?
In counseling sessions, we have frequently heard statements
something like these: “Why can’t I satisfy him/her?” “Why does
he/she want to have sex with another woman/man?” “Why
doesn’t he/she love me any more?” These questions arise from
situations where one’s mate has either actually experienced sexual
relations with another person, or has expressed the desire to do so.
The “faithful” mate is crushed by the knowledge that they are not
able to “satisfy” their partner. Our “Christianized(?)” culture has
taught for generations that one woman can satisfy all the desires of
one man and vice versa, and that any desire for more than that is
degeneracy, promiscuity and lust. But this is an insane position in
light of the multitude of examples in Scripture of holy people not
just desiring more than one mate, but experiencing multiple
relationships.
In view of the many examples we have seen in Scripture of men
having sex with many women, why is there jealousy, on either the
man’s or the woman’s part in the event that there is a desire in
either one to have sex with another person? What do we think was
the norm during OT times when a husband made love to one wife
one night, then another wife the next, then his slave the next, then a
concubine the next, then…? We never see the “jealousy factor” arise
in Scripture except in such cases as Sarah’s jealousy over Hagar’s
170
child bearing and Rachel’s jealousy over Leah’s child bearing. Do we
actually think David’s harem was filled with women seething in
jealousy over his sexual relations with any woman other than
herself? Do we imagine that any of David’s wives and concubines
grieved when they heard that he had consorted with Bathsheba,
crying, “why can’t I satisfy David’s sexual desires?” or, “Doesn’t he
love me any more?”
Perhaps it will help us think this through if we do not equate
copulation with “love.” They are not the same. Animals copulate
but do not love each other. When sex and love combine, both are
enhanced. But love is a factor of the soul and sex is a factor of the
body. It is wonderful when they both meet, but it is not necessary
that they do so. In countless human situations, love is real where no
sexual activity occurs, and just as legitimately, sex occurs without
the ingredient of “love” at least in the romantic sense. One can
“have sex” without “making love.” What we call “making love” is
actually better described as “enjoying sex.” One does not equal the
other. For committed partners, “making love” is a fitting
description of the sex act because it has the quality of love
combined with the physical act. But when sex is enjoyed between
two people who are not married and who do not “love” each other
it is not “making love,” it is simply “enjoying sex.” Therefore the
heading of this article is actually a misnomer. It is not that one
person is “loving” more than one person. It is rather that one
person is “enjoying sex” with more than one person. If this idea is
distasteful to the reader please realize that this is exactly what
occurred in the examples given above of Abimelech, Gilead, and
Samson.
On the other hand, it is truly acceptable for one person to truly
and deeply “love” more than one person at a time. Again the Bible
is full of examples of this very thing. A wife should not feel
threatened by her husband’s desire to experience sex with another
woman. In all the thousands of examples of this very practice in OT
we never find a hint that the first wife was threatened or jealous of
the fact that her husband had sex with others except in the event
the other woman had children and the first wife had none. For the
same reasons no husband should feel threatened or jealous if his
wife desires to experience sex with another man. Given our modern
brainwashing with the opposite viewpoint it may be impossible for
171
most men and women to reach this point. But we are simply
attempting to understand what is or is not required by the Bible.
Is Sexual Enjoyment Adverse To Holiness?
Can a person enjoy sex with more than one person, and still be
holy? The answer is twofold:
1] If sex is inherently unholy, then strictly monogamous sex is
unholy which means married people must seek God’s forgiveness
and cleansing every time they have sex in order to be qualified to
worship Him. No one believes this is true. Sexual activity is not
inherently unholy.
2] Since sexual activity is not inherently unholy then there is
nothing inherently unholy in the fact that one person has sex with
more than one other person. Sex between multiple partners is not
unholy unless God legislates against it. And this He does not do. Not
only is there no Biblical law against “Polyamory” (loving many),
but the Bible is filled with examples of exemplary “saints” (i.e.
“holy ones”) of God, having sex with many different partners, with
God’s approval.
God’s holiest servants loved sex and had sexual relations with
more than one partner. The most outstanding men of the Old
Testament enjoyed sex with multiple wives, concubines, slaves and
prostitutes yet God accepted their faith and holiness without
question. We have given the examples of Abraham, Jacob, Gideon,
David, etc.
It is doubtless impossible for most religious people to imagine
that a godly, holy, faith filled, Spirit filled saint could have sex with
a concubine, then get up next morning to worship God and pray,
without being a hypocrite. But David proves it is possible. David is
the author of our Worship/praise/prayer manual – the Psalms.
Every generation recognizes the Psalms as the epitome of a holy
man’s communion with God. David, a “man after God’s own
heart,” wrote and worshipped God with these Psalms. But David
enjoyed the pleasures of sex with many more women than Michal,
his first wife. Could David have sex with a concubine or with one
of his servants and get up early the next morning to “awaken the
dawn” with prayer and worship? Certainly! Did God accept it?
Definitely! Was David holy in spite of his great sexual desire and
activity? Obviously! Nothing about sexual activity makes one
172
unholy except breaching God’s – not man’s – specific prohibitions. Sex
with more than one partner is not one of those prohibitions.
Will sex with more than one person cause one to fail to fulfill
his/her Divine destiny? Gideon was called and chosen by God to
lead Israel in the defeat of their enemies. Yet Gideon had many
wives. Having sex with others than his first wife had no bearing at
all either on God calling him, or on his faithful, successful fulfillment
of his destiny. He enjoyed sex with many women yet served God
faithfully and was forever enshrined among the great heroes of
faith in Heb. 11:32. Was Gideon a holy man? Absolutely! Did his
sexual enjoyment of several women hinder his relationship with
God or destroy his destiny? Absolutely not!
Abraham is our greatest hero of faith – the example God holds
before us to imitate. But Abraham had sex with his wife’s servant at
his wife’s suggestion. Did God frown upon Sarah for suggesting
such a “vulgar” thing? Did God chastise Abraham for accepting his
wife’s invitation to have sex with Hagar? Not in the least. Abraham
and Sarah both made the mistake of thinking they could help God
fulfill His promise to give them a son, but nowhere does God even
hint that they sinned or were even “indiscreet” in this “affair”
between Abraham and Hagar. Abraham had several unnamed
concubines and had sons by them, (Gen. 25:6). In his sexual
involvement with several women other than Sarah, did Abraham
incur God’s disfavor? Did he fail to meet his Divine destiny? Was
He ever rebuked, or did God’s “anointing” ever leave him?
Absolutely not! Abraham continued throughout his life to be a holy
worshipper and productive servant of God. His sexual behavior
was never a factor in God’s approval of his person or his service.
Can a man be holy, pursue his divine call and keep God’s good
favor, even though he consorts with a prostitute? Samson did. God
never spoke a word of rebuke, warning or correction to Samson
about his pursuit of sexual activity with women other than his wife.
His only problem with God was his betrayal of the secret of his
anointing into enemy hands. This cost him his liberty for awhile yet
at the very end of his life he prayed again for strength, God
answered and his last heroic act destroyed so many Philistine
leaders that it marked the end of their power over Israel. This was
his prophesied destiny. He fulfilled it completely.
Judah visited what he thought was a prostitute, by
propositioning Tamar, his daughter in law. She became pregnant
173
with his child. God never reproached him for it nor ever even
hinted any displeasure with him for this act. Did Judah fail to meet
his Divine destiny because of this sexual encounter? Absolutely
not! Until his death he remained a select servant of God whose
worship and prayers were accepted by a Holy God. Israel’s
Messiah sprang forth from Judah’s lineage.
Jacob had two wives, and enjoyed sex with them both and also
with their personal maids. The “Father of Israel” whose name still
identifies the Jews, was never corrected, rebuked, etc. for having
sex with at least four different women. Did God accept him as a
holy man? Obviously! Was his service to God rewarded by God?
Certainly! Did his sexual relations with several women make him
unholy or render his worship and prayers unacceptable?
Absolutely not!
Note that in these examples as in the many more we have
already given, there is no indication that the original wives fretted
over questions about their husband’s love, fidelity and
commitment to the marriage. These women obviously understood
the nature of sexual desire and they accepted their husband’s desire
for other sexual partners. Let us say it again: If a man desires to
enjoy sex with another partner it does not mean that he no longer
loves his wife. It does not mean that she does not satisfy him. It
does not mean he is tired of her. It does not mean she must “share”
him with another woman. The same holds true if a woman desires
to have sex with other men than her husband. If married people
could see the whole sexual arena from a strictly Biblical vantagepoint
and divest themselves of the religious and cultural baggage
they carry, they would be free of jealousy, fear, suspicion, etc. They
would be free to think about and actually enjoy a wider range of
sexual pleasure with others than their mates. Doing so does not
threaten the marriage bond. It does not threaten love. A marriage
must be built upon love. If it is then the pleasures of diverse sex
will not harm it.
The true Biblical basis of marriage is lifetime commitment to each
other, not sexual exclusivity. Sexual intercourse with another person
implies nothing about that commitment. Adultery in the mind and
in actuality, is either the desire or the actual effort to end a marriage
without Biblical reason. God demands that a man and woman not
attempt to sever their marriage ties unless their mate has been
unfaithful to their original vows. Biblical vows evidently included
174
only that they would remain married for life. If evidence arose that
one mate was attempting to rob the other of his/her property by
severing the marriage bond, it became grounds for divorce by the
innocent party. Jesus makes this the sole basis for approved divorce
and remarriage (Matt. 5:32ff; 19:9ff; Mk. 10:1ff; Lk. 16:18ff). Jesus
was not talking about one mate enjoying sex with someone other
than his/her mate. He was talking about desiring, planning, or
attempting to undo the life long commitment they made to each
other. This is necessarily true because the only appropriate and
Biblically provable definition of “adultery” is “severing the
marriage bond.” Doing so, even in thought, “adulterates” the
marriage covenant, lessens, it, destroys it. “Extra-marital” sex does
not unless vows of sexual exclusivity have been exchanged. In that
case, if the pair desires to do so, they may negate such vows and
make new vows based on more genuinely Biblical truth.
God never voiced displeasure with multiple wives or
concubines. God did demand that when a man married a woman
he remain married to her and never allow her to be thought of as
less than other women in his life. He is commanded to rejoice in the
wife of his youth, (Prov. 5:18), that is, treat her with the honor,
dignity and favor she deserves as his first and most to be cherished
wife. It does not exclude other wives or concubines. It demands
that a man give priority to his relationship with his original wife.
This requires that he not demean her, neglect her, deprive her of
sexual pleasure, etc. It also means that he is not to seek to get rid of
her in order to marry other wives. To do so is adultery.
The specifically female side of this matter is covered in more
detail in our chapter on Adultery. But a few words here are
appropriate. OT restrictions regarding women having sex with
more than one man were never well specified, nor given much
attention. OT perspective deals almost exclusively with males. But
there is enough said about women and sex to enable us to at least
begin thinking about their specific case. The existence of
prostitution is referred to numerous times. But surprisingly there is
no Divine censure of prostitution except in cases of its connection
with idol worship or its connection with adultery. Women like
Rahab for example, were never censured nor commanded to
“repent.” This opens the door, even in the OT, to the possibility of
women enjoying sexual activity with several men. A more detailed
look at prostitution in presented in our chapter on that topic. But
175
the issue of married women and sex as relates to adultery is
significant. As detailed in the chapters on Polygamy, and Adultery,
the reasons married women could not have sex with other men in
the OT relates directly to the prime consideration given to physical
offspring by which tribal lineage was maintained. Purity of family
tree was a matter of supreme importance in Israelite culture
therefore a wife could have sex only with her husband, thereby
ensuring that any child she bore was truly part of the tribal lineage.
Since tribal lineage and inheritance flowed from the male a married
man would not be considered an adulterer if he has sex with
concubines, slaves and prostitutes. The reason for restrictive sex
was removed from the male, because he would not dilute the
family tree by possibly impregnating women other than his wife.
Since this was not a danger for the male there was no “breaking
covenant” for him if he had sex outside the marriage bond. But
either implicitly or explicitly, the Israelite marriage bond required a
woman to be sexually active with her husband alone because the
wife would bring impure “seed” into the lineage if she bore a child
that did not belong to her husband.
As demonstrated in the chapter on Adultery, Jesus and NT
authors bring women out of this unequal state and give them equal
status with man, across the board, including liberty in sex and
marriage. Woman could now exercise the same privileges as the
man. Since polygamy was never outlawed by God and existed in
the NT church without a word of discouragement or correction, the
equal status of the woman makes it possible for her now to have
more than one husband/sexual partner. As was true in the OT for
the male, a woman with equal status can now have sex with more
than one man because doing so does not carry the same
genealogical importance as in OT Israel. In other words, every
reason for a woman having sex with only her husband has been
removed. Add to this her now equal status with him and we have the
door open for her to enjoy as much freedom in sexual activity as
was once preserved for males only. “Adultery” is not a sex act; it is
intention to sever, or actually severing, the marriage relationship. A
woman enjoying sex with men other than her husband no more
constitutes “adultery” now, than does a man in either OT or NT,
enjoying sex with women other than his wife. We could rid
ourselves of the burden we carry on this issue if we could see two
things:
176
[1. Sex is designed by God for enjoyment as much as for
procreation. In God’s eyes sex is a great blessing to His kids. He
does not hover over us daring us to “have fun” with sex. He
does not watch all our sexual thoughts and punish us when we
have a sex thought about someone other than our spouse. Nor
does He watch us like a hawk to see if we dare try to enjoy sex
with anyone other than our mate. As any Creator would do,
God watches humans enjoy this activity and rejoices that “it
works” just the way He intended. As long as we do not abuse
other people, and fully consider their rights and feelings, God
has no laws against sexual variety. As we may enjoy a great
variety of food we may enjoy variety in sex. As we may
appreciate many works of art, fine works of architecture,
beautiful automobiles, etc. so may we appreciate in a sexual
way, beautiful women and men. There is no justifiable reason
for jealousy, feeling threatened, possessiveness, etc. Mature men
and women can, if they will work at it, come to a place of
mature understanding on this subject and begin to truly
appreciate and enjoy what an incredible blessing sex is to
mankind without the guilt and shame that shackles and even
ruins so many lives today.
[2. God’s laws against married people having sex with others
than their spouses (given only to the woman) were God’s way of
ensuring that Israelite lineage would be preserved and a pure line of
descent would be in place for the coming of Messiah. Men having sex
with other women would in no way threaten this lineage
therefore no restriction applied to the man. When we remove
this factor we no longer have a valid reason for the restrictions
placed on wives.
Nothing about Jesus’ death on the cross has changed these two
things. The coming of Messiah, His redemptive work and the birth
of the church, has in no sense and to no degree suddenly made sex
“dirty.” Just as holy people of God enjoyed sex in the OT so may
they do so now, but with the difference that women are now free to
enjoy sexual variety along with men. God’s creation of sex has not
been made unholy by the death of Jesus. In our chapter on God’s
Unchanging Nature we demonstrate that what God approves or
177
disapproves flows from His nature. He does not change His mind
about what is and is not sin. The ministry of Jesus in no way
changed God’s attitude about sex, making a formerly acceptable
thing now forbidden. The only true effects on sexual practice, in the
ministry and teaching of Jesus, are that He provides true
forgiveness for those who repent of forbidden sex. And He liberates
women from their previous sexual confinement. Just as Jesus
eliminated no longer applicable Jewish ceremonial rituals He also
eliminated no longer applicable sex laws for married women.
Enjoyment of sexual relations with more than one person has
never been an essential issue with God. His only concern was
protection of the people involved. If we will exercise true concern
and respect for anyone with whom we contemplate enjoying sex
and if we refuse to participate in forbidden activities, we are
otherwise free to enjoy this wonderful pleasure.
178
CHAPTER EIGHT
FORNICATION part 2
Scripture References:
We present here, some Scripture references that do not
automatically fit a specific category. Though many would fit in the
general category of fornication, there are some interesting
observations to make apart from that categorization.
Included among the examples of great faith people in Hebrews 11,
are these.
Abraham – polygamist and concubinist - no divine censure
anywhere.
Isaac – polygamist and concubinist - no divine censure
anywhere.
Jacob – polygamist and concubinist - no divine censure
anywhere.
Gideon – polygamist and concubinist - no divine censure
anywhere.
Samson – polygamist and concubinist - no divine censure
anywhere.
David – polygamist and concubinist - no divine censure
anywhere.
Now, connect the foregoing list of mighty men of faith, with this
statement from the next chapter; “Do not be fornicators,” (Heb.
12:16).
In the previous chapter of Hebrews the writer names several
polygamists and concubinists as history’s great examples of
faithfulness to God. Now he condemns “fornication.” What then
can be more obvious than that, in this inspired NT author’s mind,
polygamy and concubinism are in no sense “fornication.”
“Fornication” is a generic word that describes the practice of any sex
act God has forbidden. God never forbade polygamy or
concubinism, in OT or NT, therefore for a man to have many wives
and concubines does not make him guilty – then or now – of
fornication.
Let us add to this, the following verse: “Let marriage be held in
honor among all, and let and the marriage bed undefiled; for fornicators
and adulterers God will judge,” (Heb. 13:4). Again, the connection of
179
this verse with the general context of Heb. 11 and 12:16 proves also
that polygamy and concubinism are in no sense “fornication” or
“adultery.” The reason for this is because “adultery” is “separation
of married mates,” “breaking of marriage bonds.” In polygamy and
concubinism there is no breaking of marriage bonds even though
many women may be committed to one man. The use of both
“adultery” and “fornication” helps us get the point that “adultery” is
not a sex act per se. “Fornication” is a generic word that includes all
forbidden sex acts. “Adultery” simply refers to whatever breaks the
marriage bond. Either fornication or adultery “dishonors” marriage
and “defiles” the marriage bed: adultery dishonors marriage by
breaking its bonds; fornication defiles the bed by bringing into the
bed forbidden acts such as incest, rape, bestiality. The writer of
Hebrews understands the nature of both adultery and fornication.
And he is perfectly familiar with the sexual life-style of those great
faith people he names. It is important for him to warn us against
fornication and adultery yet no mention is made of the multiple sex
relationships of these faithful men. The conclusion is obvious: even
in NT times multiple sex relationships were not viewed as either
adultery or fornication. If they were, we have absolutely no way to
learn it because no NT writer tells us that God changed His mind
about polygamy and concubinism, now condemning what He once
allowed.
The list above from Heb. 11 designates these most famous, most
blessed and most anointed men in the history of the church as
pillars upon which the church rests. They were blessed by God to be
close to Him and to fulfill their life’s calling even though every one
of them had multiple wives and concubines. This illustrates again
that God has never been concerned about how many people one
has sex with. The sex act is neither moral nor immoral. It is a
biological function in humans exactly as it is in animals. What God is
concerned about is how we relate to those with whom we have sex.
Any disregard for their personal dignity, refusal of responsibility
for any consequences that result from sexual relations or contempt
for the exclusive right of a person to control their personal
sexuality, is forbidden. But within the confines of that principle there is
no law against sexual relations with many partners. As long as
Scripture stands the above list alone proves our point. The many
other Scriptures and categories we have studied in this series
makes that statement, in our mind, beyond doubt.
180
This principle being true, there is no reason for humans to bear
guilt or shame at the desire for wider sexual experience any more
than they desire “more” of many other things in life. No one thinks
that having one house eliminates the validity of the desire for
another one, perhaps a “summer cottage.” Having one automobile
does not make it invalid to desire another. Enjoying one kind of
meat does not make it excessive to desire other kinds. So on and on
we could illustrate this principle. People automatically put sex in a
totally exclusive category then interpret the Bible in light of their
preconceptions. What they readily accept in virtually all other
aspects of life they reject in regard to sex. Yet the Bible does not do
so. God treats sex as He treats any other human function. He made
some laws about eliminating bodily waste because of the way it
affects other people. He made laws concerning eating in order to
prevent wasteful, debilitating abuse of a good thing. He regulated
wine drinking to prevent drunkenness. He made laws against
“coveting” other people’s property to prevent stealing. In the same
way God made some laws concerning sex to protect people’s
dignity and personal property rights. Because sex is more personal
than virtually any other act it requires special laws. But those laws
all fall within the category of protecting the other person with whom
we may enjoy sex. Each participant in sex must be more concerned
about the other person’s well being and dignity than about a purely
selfish physical pleasure. As long as the other person is fully
regarded and respected God’s laws allow for much sexual variety.
Engaging in sexual activity with more than one partner, even if
married, is allowed for both husband and wife if they are both
willing to grant such liberty to each other, because doing so with
mutual agreement constitutes neither breaking the marriage bond
(“adultery”), nor “fornication” (unlawful sex). In the OT a husband
could have unlimited sex partners (cf. Solomon’s 1,000 wives and
concubines). The wife could not have more than one partner
because this threatened the tribal lineage of her husband. But with
the NT liberation of woman and her equality with man, a wife now
shares with her husband full sexual liberty. In matters of multiple
sexual relations nothing has changed from OT to NT except that
what once was a privilege reserved only for men, is now available
to women also.
Many other generic Scriptures list sexual sin:
181
Gentiles must keep themselves from fornication, (Acts 15:20, 29;
21:25).
Gentiles were given over to unrighteousness and fornication,
(Rom. 1:29; 13:13).
“A man has his father’s wife” which is “fornication (1 Cor. 5:1f).
This is incest, a forbidden act.
“Do not associate with fornicators… who are called brothers,” (1 Cor.
5:9, 11).
“Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor
homosexuals…shall inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Cor. 6:9-10). Trying
to undo the mess made by translating the Greek word arsenokoites
as “homosexual” is too much to undertake here. Obtain our book
entitled God Is Not A Homophobe for a thorough examination of
what this word means. We will be content here to state that any
reference the Bible actually makes to homosexuality is nothing at
all like what we mean when we use that word today.
“Shall I take away the members of Christ and make them members of a
harlot? May it never be! Or do you not know that the one who joins
himself to a harlot is one body with her?…Flee immorality…the immoral
man sins against his own body,” (1 Cor. 6:15-18). This statement
reflects Corinth’s pagan culture, complete with “sex-as-worship” to
idols, and temple prostitutes. Paul’s question is about the propriety
of joining oneself to pagan idol worship by having sex with a
temple prostitute. One cannot do that and at the same time remain
loyal to the one true God, who alone is to be worshipped. Such acts
make his body a device for idol worship and is a sin against his
body and therefore also a sin against the Holy Spirit who inhabits
the body of a Christian; “your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit,”
(vs.19).
Israelites engaged in pagan revelry, “fornication,” and were
punished, (1 Cor. 10:7-8).
Do not use freedom in Christ to indulge sinful nature, (Gal.
5:13). Live by the Spirit and you will not indulge that nature, (vs.
16). Acts of sinful nature are “fornication, impurity, lasciviousness,”
(vs. 19). Those who belong to Christ have crucified the evil nature
with its lusts & desires, (Gal. 5:24).
Once we all gratified the cravings of our sinful nature, (Eph.
2:3). Gentiles have given themselves over to sensuality to indulge in
every kind of impurity and continually lust for more. (Eph. 4:19).
Among saints there must not be even a hint of fornication, or
182
impurity, (Eph. 5:3). No fornicator or impure person can inherit the
kingdom of God, (Eph. 5:5).
Human rules have no power against fleshly indulgence, (Col.
2:23). This being true, if we find what we must admit are human
rules relating to sexual matters, we can safely disregard them. Put
to death fornication, uncleanness, lust, evil desires, (Col. 3:5).
God wills that we avoid fornication, that each one learns to
control his own body, (1 Thess. 4:3,4). God requires that we learn
sexual self-control. Sexual excess is lasciviousness or concupicence.
The law is for adulterers and “sodomites,” (1 Tim. 1:9, 10).
Again, this translation is so unfortunate because arsenokoites has
nothing at all to do with Sodom, or anything that happened in
Sodom. See our book entitled God Is Not A Homophobe for details.
Flee youthful lusts, (2 Tim. 2:22; 1 Pet. 2:11).
We once walked in “lewdness” (1 Pet. 4:3). This is lasciviousness;
excessive, shameless disregard for God’s sex laws or public morals.
By God’s promises we escaped the depravity that is in the world
through lust, (2 Pet. 1:4). God will judge those who “walk according
to the flesh in the lusts of uncleanness,” (2 Pet. 2:9). They allure
through lusts of the flesh, through lewdness, those who are saved,
(2 Pet. 2:18).
“Lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes…is not of the Father, but of the
world,” (1 Jn. 2:16). See the chapter on Lust of the Eyes for
discussion of the meaning of this phrase.
Some have turned the grace of God into “lewdness,” (Jude 4).
Angels “left their proper sphere…just like Sodom and Gomorrah,
gave themselves to fornication, and strange flesh” and became subject to
God’s wrath, (Jude 6, 7). This verse is discussed in detail in our
book entitled God Is Not A Homophobe. But we remark here briefly
that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is said here to be in going
after “strange” flesh. It is so intriguing to learn that the word Jude
used here is heteras, the word from which we derive our word
“heteros” as in “hetero-sexual!” The sin here is not “homo” flesh,
but “hetero” flesh. Jude thought the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah
involved some sort of illegitimate “hetero” sexual pursuit!!!
At Pergamos some taught people to “commit fornication,” (Rev.
2:14-16). They must “repent.” Thyatira “tolerates Jezebel” who
“seduces My servants to commit fornication, …I gave her time to repent
of her fornication, but she would not…I will cast her…and those who
183
commit adultery with her, into great tribulation unless they repent,”
(Rev. 2:20-22).
At the sounding of the 6th trumpet, men “did not repent of their
fornication…” (Rev. 9:21).
144,000 saints “were not defiled with women, for they are virgins,”
(Rev. 14:1-4).
“Babylon is fallen…she made all nations drink of her fornication,”
(Rev. 14:8).
The “great harlot” is judged, with whom kings of the earth
committed fornication, and earth’s inhabitants were made drunk
with wine of her fornication, (Rev. 17:1-2). Her cup was “filled with
the filthiness of her fornication,” (vs. 4).
All nations have drunk the wine of the wrath of Babylon’s
fornication. Earth’s kings have committed fornication with her; the
kings of earth who commit fornication with her will mourn when
she is destroyed, (Rev. 18:3, 9).
God judged the great harlot who corrupted the earth with her
fornication, (Rev. 19:2).
The “… fornicators …have their part in the lake of fire…” (Rev.
21:8).
Outside the heavenly city are “dogs, sorcerers and fornicators,”
(Rev. 22:15).
COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS:
God’s laws against specific sex practices relate to proper regard
for other people’s personal property and their exclusive rights to
their own sexuality. All God’s laws against sex have to do with this
aspect. It is not the sex act that God is concerned about. It is how
we relate to other people through this act. Where people’s personal
feelings, personal conscience, personal “property,” that is their
body, is respected there are virtually no rules against sexual
enjoyment. There is nothing inherently either moral or immoral
about the human sex act. Sexual activity has no essential holy or
unholy quality to it. Anything moral/immoral or holy/unholy as
associated with sex, comes as direct revelation in the form of God’s
prohibitions against all sex acts that encroach upon other people’s
rights to their own body, their own personal feelings, etc. In the
absence of a direct prohibition there is freedom to explore the full
range of sexual enjoyment that remains, inhibited only by the
184
requirement of love for one’s neighbor. That range is much broader
than most of us thought possible.
Once people learn this fact there is no reason for them to feel
any reluctance about going forward in their sexual exploration. The
fact that most sexual experience has been taboo all our lives can
cease to have any negative effect on our enjoyment of all of life that
God makes available to us. There is more to be enjoyed than a
husband and wife having intercourse in the missionary position.
For those who can see the truths we have tried to bring out of
Scripture, and illustrate, we believe that:
Husbands and wives can be free to explore sex with each
other in as many ways as they both desire. Again, concern and
love for the other person will prohibit the husband from
demanding that his wife submit to something she does not want
to do. On the other hand, she should be willing to discuss the
activity with her husband and be willing to be as open as
possible to sexual activities that are not painful or degrading to
her.
They may also be free to enjoy sex with other partners as
long as they are both agreed to the plan. Neither husbands nor
wives should feel threatened that their mate desires to have sex
with others. Doing so does not constitute adultery. Adultery is
breaking or seeking to break the marriage union, ridding oneself of
one’s own mate, or trying to break up another’s marriage. Any
act done with that intention or having that result, is adultery and is
forbidden. But the simple act of sex with another person is not
adultery. Let us say it again: Adultery is not a sex act! If both
mates can see this and decide to move forward in their
relationship with this information then new, exciting,
pleasurable doors open for them both. And neither should feel
any guilt, shame or jealousy. True marriage is based on God’s
requirement that a man and woman make a commitment to
remain together for life. Sexual activity with another person
does not change that commitment in any way.
Neither husbands or wives should feel threatened that their
mate desires to attend a show where either male or female
shows their body for paying customers. A “strip show,” in
Biblical terms, is neither moral nor immoral, for the reason that
nakedness is neither moral or immoral, nor is sexual arousal either
moral or immoral. For one to dance naked today, even for
185
paying customers, is no more immoral than it was for the
Shulammite girl to dance naked for admiring onlookers in the
Song of Solomon, or for David to dance virtually naked before
the men and women thronging the road to Jerusalem. The
dancer is not immoral nor is the audience. It becomes a moral
issue only when the dancing is done to entice to sin via adultery,
incest, rape, etc. To become sexually excited while watching a
nude dance, or viewing nude photos is not immoral. Sexual
excitement, regardless of the source or cause, is neither moral
nor immoral. It becomes immoral only when that excitement
comes from illegitimate sources, (depictions of forbidden
activity) or leads to illegitimate action (anything God has
prohibited).
Masturbation is innocent. No man or woman should feel the
least troubled by the desire or practice of personal sexual
pleasure. Parents should not discourage their children from
masturbation but should explain to them that it is a legitimate
enjoyment of personal pleasure. If the situation arises where a
child plays with his/her genitals in public, he/she can be gently
taught to save that kind of play for the privacy of their own
home when strangers are not present. And there is no need to
confine your child’s masturbation to the bedroom or bathroom.
The attempt to confine it to secrecy re-enforces the faulty
lessons we need to un-teach. In a family’s home, parents and
children ought not have any reluctance about their bodies.
Families may and we think should practice nudity much of the
time when they are alone together at home. And when little
Johnny or young Susie manipulate their sexual organs in the
presence of the other members of the family they should not be
disciplined or discouraged. Indeed there is good argument for
establishing an “open door” policy in the household. That is,
children should not be taught to hide their sexuality when at
home. This means that parents should keep an “open door”
during their own sexual activities. There is no evidence that if
children watch their parents having intercourse, it will warp
their minds or otherwise harm them. When parents desire
privacy from time to time they can farm the kids out and spend
time alone. But to close and lock their doors when they enjoy
sex tells the children that there must be something wrong with
sex after all else mom and dad would not be hiding it. To send
186
children to the bathroom or bedroom, behind closed doors to
masturbate, tells them the same thing.
The author of these studies will always remember
thankfully, an event in his home, when as a teenager he was
awakened during the night to the unmistakable sounds of
sexual activity coming from his parent’s room just a feet away.
This activity quite naturally excited him sexually and he
masturbated while he listened. The following day he mustered
the courage to ask his mother about the activity of the previous
night. As they talked, his mother explained that there was
nothing to be ashamed of at being sexually excited by the
incident. Questions about a woman’s body, her genitals, her
breasts, etc. were asked and she answered very casually and
non-threateningly. He risked telling her that he was
experiencing an erection even as they talked and she very
kindly explained that the “power of suggestion” was natural
and that its effect in causing an erection was nothing to be
ashamed of. She asked if he had masturbated before and when
he admitted that he had she simply encouraged him to control
the desire to masturbate so that it did not become a “habit.” In
terms of prevailing standards such advice was truly “liberal.”
This author is so thankful that his mother did not heap guilt
upon him but rather gave him liberty to enjoy an innocent and
most natural activity.
What evidence exists, suggests that sex education in Biblical
times was done in a family environment. Children learned
about sex by observation in the home and no doubt shared their
information among their friends. Ancient documents prove that
communities were small, self-contained units consisting of
houses clustered together within a walled city, town or village.
Everyone lived packed together with large families occupying
small houses. They had no plumbing, toilets or baths as we have
and there was virtually no privacy. For the common populace,
most homes consisted either of one large room or at most two
rooms, one serving as kitchen/dining area. Except for wealthy
families with large houses, adults and children lived, ate and
slept together. Animals generally were brought in at night, and
in the daytime were corralled close to the house in small yards
with minimal fences. Children witnessed animals mating both
indoors and outdoors. Bowel and bladder elimination was not a
187
private matter as males especially would commonly “piss
against the wall,” (1 Sam. 25:22, 34; 1 Kg. 14:10; 16:11; 21:21; 2 Kg.
9:8) exposing their genitals to view by whomever was near.
Bathing was done in the open room in a tub set in the floor
for the purpose and adults and children became accustomed to
seeing each other’s sex organs and thinking nothing of it.
Sleeping quarters were cramped and boys and girls generally
slept together, making it easy to observe the difference in their
genitals and to experience sexual excitement as they “experimented”
with each other. When parents copulated, children
couldn’t help hearing the sounds and witnessing the act, even
when it was done in the dimness of moonlit nights. Separated
from parents by only a few feet children easily and frequently
awoke to the sounds of bed bouncing, heavy breathing,
moaning and cries of sexual pleasure. Parents did not have the
luxury of privacy. Children who were roused out of sleep
would, in curiosity, go to the bed of their parents to see what all
the racket was about. When such activity began to pique their
own sexual urges it was no more unusual for them to
masturbate than for them to witness their parents having sex.
Masturbation itself was never an issue in ancient societies. As
children grew together, experimentation with and manipulation
of their own and each other’s sex organs was as natural as any
other physical activity. Masturbation was as normal for children
as bowel movements. We have no indication that children were
discouraged from masturbation or that they were required to do
it only in private. They could not practice private masturbation
any more than they could privately bathe, or than their parents
could have sex in private. Sexual activity running the gamut
from petting to full scale intercourse with all the accompanying
family intimacies could not be hidden from the growing child. It
was a natural part of their intellectual, social and sexual
development. In this environment, nudity was commonplace,
both parents and children being uninhibited about their naked
bodies, sex organs and their function, and feeling no shame
about being seen by other family members.
There is no indication in Scripture, that God considered such
conditions to be unsatisfactory, uncivilized, etc. We shudder at
such conditions only because we have learned to think of sex as
188
basically unwholesome, and something that must at all costs be
kept hidden.
Parents are role models for their children in sex as with
everything else. The way a father relates to a mother teaches
children how men and women interact. If in the home there is
little or no talk about sex, or if what talk is done consists of
negative references and warnings; or occurs in homes where the
body is always hidden and children’s hands are spanked when
they feel their sex organs and all talk of sexual function is taboo,
then children learn that sex is dirty, shameful and vulgar. They
learn to fear sex and hide it. When they reach adulthood and
marry they are frequently unable to experience the joy of sexual
intimacy with their partner. What sex they have is hidden,
secretive, in the dark. In such conditions a woman who
manifests a positive desire for sex is considered a “hussy,”
“brazen,” a “Lolita,” etc. So many women in our culture cannot
truly enjoy sex because their upbringing enslaves them to the
“dirty sex” mentality. Growing out of that mentality is difficult
at best and sometimes impossible. We believe the only truly
workable prescription for this miserable condition is to return to
the true Biblical attitude toward sex as a wholesome, Godcreated,
pleasurable and to be sought after activity. If we can see
that God gave sex to His kids for their enjoyment, then we can
come out of our shells and receive it as the gift and Godordained
blessing it is.
Let the reader remember that we have gotten ourselves into
our sexual mess because of wrong information and human
rules. If we went strictly by Scripture as it is actually written,
there would be no negative feelings about the foregoing
comments. For the sake of grown up and child alike we need to
work at getting back to a sane and Biblical perspective on sex. If
we can do that sex will be many times more pleasurable and
many times less guilt inducing.
An action does not have to have an example in Scripture, for it to
be permissible. Most of the things we do have no example in
Scripture. We have freedom to do them because they are in
harmony with principles of Scriptures. Life is governed by
principles. A specific example of behavior that God allows makes it
permissible for others. A general principle will allow all activity that
falls within that principle even though it is not specified. In all
189
cases God legislates against the behavior He forbids. What He does not
forbid is allowed. This does not mean He advocates or encourages
everything else but it does mean that non-forbidden practices are
allowed for those whose personal choice is to engage in them.
This study on sex is radical departure from conventional
religious thought. But “salvation by grace alone” was a radical
departure in salvation theology and experience. Likewise healing,
tongues, etc. is radical in the area of theology and Christian service.
Also “spiritual warfare” over cities and nations is a radical
departure in the area of kingdom living. And dancing, raising
hands, shouting, etc. is radical departure in the area of worship.
Women in ministry is a radical departure in the area of church
leadership. Radical does not equal wrong. Radical often brings sanity
back to a culture or church that has been taken down the path of
legalism. Conventional religious thought is radically different from
Biblical thought in many areas, especially concerning church
growth. Tremendous tragedy has been visited upon the church
because men have grown predominantly interested in the number of
people rather than in the strength of the people who make it up.
Consequently the church has been reduced to no more than a
religious social club. Conventional church thought in this area
needs desperately to be abandoned.
So it is on the subject of sex. People wear shackles and blinders
God never placed upon them because the church has followed the
human tendency – oft repeated through the ages – of taking what
God says, then adding human interpretation to it, altering and
augmenting it until we have something totally different from what
God said in Scripture. Fundamentally, people are no more
restricted in sexual practice than are animals. God requires of
humans that we honor and respect relationships with each other
and do nothing that compromises the property rights of others,
especially their rights to sole control over their bodies and their
sexuality. Within the boundaries that honor God’s law on strictly
forbidden practices, plus respect for and responsibility for others,
humans are free to enjoy sex in many variations. Other humans do
not have sufficient wisdom or authority to steal this blessing
through religious dictatorship.
Being stigmatized by others because of personal choices that
range outside the religious, cultural or social mainstream does not
make those choices wrong. Labels of “pervert,” “hedonist,”
190
“voluptuary,” “sex addict,” etc. should not carry enough weight in
our minds as to scare us from enjoying activities that are innocent
as defined by Biblical standards. Each individual must weigh the
risks of being “caught” in the act of enjoying sexuality in ways of
which others do not approve. Then decisions should be made on
the strength of one’s personal desire for God-approved activity as
weighed against possible public censure. Many people cannot
escape the grip of fear of being “caught.” They imagine every
possible scenario that might “expose” them. And even if the
likelihood of “exposure” is minimal some people cannot walk in
liberty to enjoy their own choices because they are bound by fear.
This is sad. However we encourage even those people to risk as
much as they dare. We encourage them to walk as far into sexual
liberty as they may. As they take even a few steps we believe they
will discover their “risk level” rising and they will be able to go
further and further as they grow into their own persons, unbound
by the unfounded opinions of others. The issue is more
fundamental than the specific issue of sexual liberty. It is the cause
of personal liberty itself for which we contend. No being in the
universe except God has the authority or power to circumscribe
human behavior. Where He refuses to do so, no human agency has
the right to do so. Even civil law is drawn from the moral law
originally codified in the Bible. Responsible civil law merely makes
mandatory in society the observance of laws that prevent
encroachment upon the property, rights and welfare of others.
In all areas where God has not legislated, humans are free to
experience what they choose. No human is obligated to honor the
decisions, ideas or desires of other humans. No human can grow to
their potential intellectually, psychologically, socially or sexually
until they rid themselves of all merely human restraints and pursue
the freedom to learn, experiment and experience what interests
them. One who will not do this will forever remain the prisoner of
other people’s ignorance and prejudice. Let us be free. Let us take
advantage of a world of possibilities for all parts of our life. Let us
reject the attempts of all people who seek to bind us to their
personal opinions. We live in bondage to others only if we choose to
do so. Likewise we will walk in freedom only if we choose freedom.
191
CHAPTER NINE
PROSTITUTION
In this country prostitutes are outcasts. They are considered the
dregs of society. They receive no sympathy or mercy and no
attempt is made to understand who they are and why they pursue
such a “wretched” (we think) lifestyle. In our society no one
hesitates to condemn those who make commerce of their sexuality
and we think it outrageous that anyone would think to question
our collective attitude. But surely those who follow Christ must
remember that He accepted a precious gift from a prostitute, and
when his host reacted negatively to this Jesus rebuked him for it,
(Lk. 7:36-50). He did not recoil from her touch and He did not
rebuke, chastise or correct her. With profound sympathy He
ministered acceptance to her thus setting for us the example we
must strive to imitate.
God loved the world, with its worst, with such intensity that He
sent Jesus to die for us all. Do we not owe it to each other to grant
sufficient grace to those we consider the “worst” among us, to be
certain that we do not marginalize an entire segment of society
without first examining all the Biblical evidence pertaining to their
lifestyle? Can we at least entertain the possibility that we might not
know exactly what the Bible teaches about prostitution and
prostitutes? Those who believe that they are infallibly correct on
this topic should not waste time reading further. For the rest of us
the following study may be eye-opening. As always we begin by
looking at the exact meaning of the words we will be considering.
Definitions:
Heb. zana.
“to commit adultery; fig. to commit idolatry, unfaithful,
whore(dom) (Israel being God’s spouse). (Strong’s #2181, 2, 3, 4)
“sacred person, devotee by prostitution to licentious idolatry;
sodomite, unclean, consecrated thing, holiness, sanctuary.”
(Strong’s #6945, 6, 7, 8)
“harlotry, idolatry, fornication, whoredom.” (Strong’s #8457)
192
Gk. porneia, fornication; porne, (fem.) a fornicator; pornos, (masc.) a
fornicator.
“to be utterly unchaste, given over to fornication.” (Strong’s #1608)
“adultery, incest; fig. idolatry; fornication.”
“lit. to indulge unlawful lust (of either sex), or fig. practice idolatry;
commit fornication.” “a strumpet; fig. an idolater.” “debauchee
(libertine), fornicator, whoremonger.” (Strong’s #4202, 03, 04, 05)
Scripture references:
Judah’s wife is dead and on one of his travels he mistakes his
daughter in law, Tamar for a “harlot” and buys sex with her. Her
price is a kid from Judah’s flock, (Gen. 38:12-18). Judah thus sexes a
“prostitute” who is actually his daughter in law. Tamar is found
pregnant & Judah commands death, (vs. 24), however because she
possesses the evidence to prove that the child is his, she is set free.
Why is it OK for Judah to have sex with a prostitute but wrong for
her to be a prostitute? It is because she was already “promised” or
“betrothed” to her brother in law even though she had not yet been
actually given to him as wife. So it was not the prostitution that
brought Judah’s wrath. It was the fact that Tamar was technically
“married.” Being with child by someone other than her “betrothed”
makes her technically an adulteress. This is the reason for the death
penalty.
Judah’s possessions in her hand saves her life, (vs. 25, 26).
Nothing in the text suggests that either God or man saw anything
unusual in Judah’s propositioning a prostitute. If she had not been
betrothed there would have been no condemnation of her because,
as we shall see prostitution is not condemned by God except when
it involves a married woman, thus adultery. We must emphasize the
main point here: Judah was a righteous man, one of the 12 sons of
Jacob, the primary progenitor of Messiah. If his action with a
prostitute had been truly reprehensible, do we think God would
have said and done nothing in the way of correction? Consorting
with a prostitute was simply accepted. Judah experienced nothing
more negative that the embarrassment of having failed to keep his
promise to give her to his son.
Once again we refer to the “law of first mention.” Here for the
first time in Scripture we encounter the act of prostitution. But not
one word is said to indicate that God found it problematic. And He
did nothing to correct the situation even though it involved one of
193
His faithful servants. Surely this reveals much more about God’s
attitude toward this practice than we ever thought might be true.
The Israelites are commanded to not make your daughters
“harlots” lest the land become “lewd.” (Lev. 19:29). The prohibition
here is against fathers selling their daughters in prostitution, like
the nations around them. There is a difference between a woman
freely choosing prostitution, versus a father making her a prostitute.
The principle of self-possession prohibits even parents from
stripping their children of inherent rights to their physical beings,
including their sexuality. This is one of the reasons for prohibiting
incest.
Do not play the harlot after Molech; do not play the harlot with
mediums and spiritists, (Lev. 20:2-6). Again, a specific context is
given for this prohibition. Prostitution as part of pagan idol
worship was common in the Canaanite culture surrounding Israel.
This law is not against prostitution per se, but of its use in worship
to false gods. If we remove the specific reason for the prohibition,
and we also remove the prohibition.
A priest must not marry a harlot or divorcee, (Lev. 21:7, 14). The
implication is that The Israelite leaders knew such women existed
in their midst yet there is no condemnation of them, nor any
command of legal action to be taken against them. In Israel,
prostitution was legal. Their civil law, given by God Himself,
allowed this practice by virtue of not legislating against it. Get this: no
Biblical law prohibits prostitution as such. All prohibitions relate to
abuses of the act such as a father forcing it upon his daughter, or its
use in pagan worship. These prohibitions under special
circumstances do not prohibit prostitution outright any more than
laws against heterosexual rape prohibit heterosexual sex.
If a priest’s daughter prostitutes she is to be burned with fire,
(Lev. 21:9). It is only the connection of her being a priest’s daughter
that brings this punishment. God’s concern was to eliminate sexual
practice from all worship so that Israel would not be like the
nations around them who used cult prostitutes in their religious
services. This law related to religious harlotry, which is sex used in
worship of pagan gods. The danger was in possibly contaminating
Israel’s worship & Levitical ritual by potential idolatrous practices